Hansard, 1986-08-01

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Member has been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which he has been appointed) for the period stated:- Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam (Sembawang), Minister for Education - from 7th to 19th August, 1986. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to make a statement with regard to the matter of the complaint concerning Mr Lim Poh Huat. But before I proceed, let me make it clear that I do not intend to debate the question whether there was a breach of privilege or not, as that has been referred to the Committee of Privileges. However, subsequent to our sitting on 29th July, new information has come to light which must be conveyed to Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like the Clerk of Parliament to kindly distribute to Members and to the press the signed statement (Cols. 505 - 506) which Mr Percy Seneviratne gave to the Member for Anson and which the Member for Anson himself gave to me, as well a short statement (Cols. 505 - 506) which Mr Seneviratne gave to my Ministry. statement - FURTHER STATEMENT BY PERCY SENEVIRATNE (Cols. 505 - 506) I would like to refer first, Mr Speaker, Sir, to an article which appeared in the Straits Times yesterday where Mr Seneviratne told the Straits Times that he first learned that Mr Lim Poh Huat had fabricated the story when he watched the telecast of our proceedings on the night of 29th July. Mr Lim Poh Huat then came over to his house and, according to Mr Seneviratne, he advised Mr Lim to give him a statement confessing the lie. The signed statement was handed to Mr Jeyaretnam Wednesday morning. In the short statement given to the Ministry of Home Affairs, paragraph 2, Members will see that, according to Mr Percy Seneviratne, the recorded confession of Mr Lim Poh Huat was delivered by Mr Seneviratne personally to Mr Jeyaretnam at about 9.00 am on 30th July. May I ask the Member for Anson whether he denies this or confirms this?

I thought the Minister said that as the matter has been referred to the Committee of Pri- vileges he was not going to start investigation in this very Chamber. But I am not averse to answering. What statement are you referring to - Lim Poh Huat's statement made to Mr Percy Seneviratne or his signed statement to me?

Mr Percy Seneviratne's statement that on the morning of Wednesday, 30th July, he had handed to the Member for Anson at 9.00 am Mr Lim Poh Huat's signed confession.

Yes, that is true, on the morning of 30th.

Thank you.

After, I think, the debate here.

After the debate?

No, after it was revealed ---

On 29th. After it was revealed on the 29th.

Yes.

After the first day's debate.

After you made the statement.

Let me be very clear. He does not deny that Mr Seneviratne personally delivered Mr Lim Poh Huat's confession.

I do not deny, no.

On Wednesday, the second day.

The 30th, yes.

Right. But all of us will recall that on the 30th, the second day, I did not raise the question any more because it has been referred to the Committee of Privileges but, the Member for Anson, after Question time, sought your permission, Mr Speaker, to make a personal explanation and all that he did was to give us the address of Mr Lim Poh Huat. But by that time he already knew that the whole thing was a fabrication. He already had with him a signed confession by Mr Lim Poh Huat. The question is: why did he suppress those facts when he took the opportunity to speak on Wednesday?

Have you anything to say, Mr Jeyaretnam? An hon. Member: Let's hear him.

Let's hear him, let's hear him. Yes, the whole matter is before the Committee of Privileges. I came here to give you the information and I said, "You can go and interview him now and get everything from him yourself." That is the only reason.

The Member for Anson, on his own volition, spoke around 11.30 am and all he did was to give me the address of Mr Lim Poh Huat which was a false address, asking the Police to go and investigate. But he was in possession of very vital information at 9.00 am that morning, that there was a signed confession and the whole thing was a fabrication. If he was an honourable gentleman, why did he not also tell us that important fact, that he was in possession of the information, that it was a complete lie? He could have come clean if he had no part in this fabrication and said, "Look. I know it is a complete lie. I tell you now why Lim Poh Huat did it. Please go and investigate." But he suppressed the truth. Does he not admit that he, in fact, suppressed material facts, suppressed the truth, in the same way on the previous day when, talking about Mr Jeffrey Chan, he also suppressed information? Does he not admit that that is very important information that he ought to have divulged in this House, more important than the address of Mr Lim Poh Huat?

Mr Speaker, Sir, what does the Minister want to do? He wants to move another motion, does he? Is that what he wants to do? This matter has been referred to the Committee of Privileges. You want to know why I did not bring that confession from Lim Poh Huat. I have told you. I said that the address had been given to me. The Police should go and ask him. I do not know whether even his confession may be true or not true. It is for the Police to go and investigate. You go and investigate. I have given you that.

Let us take this in perspective. In March ---

I do not know what he is referring to about. Mr Jeffrey Chan - what is the misleading part of it? That I did not say that there was an appeal? How is that material? Does the Minister deny that the man was transferred about four or five months later?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson says it was not for him to investigate the truth of the confession. This is incredible. Let us review the whole thing in perspective. In March, Mr Seneviratne comes running to the Member for Anson and said, "Look. I have got a big scoop. A person was arrested 15 hours." The Member for Anson does not contact Lim Poh Huat, does not ask for a statement, does not ask for a Police report, comes running to Parliament, makes a fantastic accusation without verifying the facts. Now, when we have the opposite that Mr Lim Poh Huat sends a signed confession, he says, "No, no. I am not going to raise this in Parliament." In other words, he is telling the whole world, "Please. False allegations, lies, come to me. I will raise it in Parliament." Truth, keep it in his pocket, do not reveal it." So that is my first point, Mr Speaker: suppression of truth and facts in this Parliament. On his own, he raised a matter of the address but the most important thing, he suppressed. The next point I want to make, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that, if Members will look at the document which I have circulated, Members will recall that on the 29th when the Member for Anson told us that he had a signed statement I asked more than once, on at least two occasions, when was that statement signed, when did he get that statement. I had my suspicions. I asked: was it before the Member for Anson raised the complaint in Parliament on 18th March or after? The Member for Anson did not reply. If Members will look at the longer signed statement of Mr Seneviratne which the Member has given me you will notice the curious fact that it is not dated. Most curious. In the statement given to the Ministry of Home Affairs, he says that this undated statement was given to Mr Jeyaretnam towards the end of March. He forgot to date the letter. I think I want to establish this fact also, which is a fact subsequent to our sitting on 29th. Can I ask the Member for Anson whether he confirms that this undated statement was handed to him towards the end of March?

As I said, this would appear to be an interrogation, but I have no worries. That statement, I think Percy has made a mistake - about the end of March. It was handed to me later.

When?

I think sometime in July actually it was handed to me. But Percy had given me this statement before I mentioned it in Parliament. He had told me orally about this man's detention, and it was after the correspondence with the Minister of State that I said, "The Ministry and the Police are saying there was no such thing. Would you let me have your signed statement?" And then he sent it to me.

A world of difference between the end of March and July. Well, contradictions will always arise when people are engaged in fabrication.

I certainly object to that because the imputation is that I was engaged in fabrication of this. This matter has been referred to the Committee of Privileges. Will the Minister withdraw that - that I was engaged in fabrication?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have just established that the Member suppressed the truth. Let me proceed, Mr Speaker, Sir.

I insist, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I said, you are allowing Government Ministers to get away with murder in this House. Some hon. Members: No!

Am I?

Yes.

I am surprised at your remark, Mr Jeyaretnam. I have been very patient with you.

But they are making statements.

I think you should withdraw your remark.

All right, I withdraw it for you, Mr Speaker, Sir, about you allowing it. But I am saying that they are making statements. May I finish on my point of order?

What point of order?

And that is, that I was a party to this fabrication, that I got the man to come and make a statement to Percy Seneviratne, that I fabricated all this. Will he withdraw it?

I never withdraw anything that I said and I never said what he claims I have said.

He says "parties concerned in the fabrication". Were you referring to me or not? Have the courage. Were you referring to me or not? Will you have the courage?

Can I speak without his rude interruptions, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Does he have the courage or not?

It is up to the Minister.

Does he have the courage? Were you saying that I fabricated all this?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the truth will come out in the Committee of Privileges.

Will you please answer my question? Will you please answer my question? Are you saying ---

Will the Member for Anson please keep his cool and sit down?

No. I am asking you. Look at me!

I don't want to look at him. Why should I look at him?

Because you are frightened. I say, "Look at me and answer the question."

If he was a person of truth, he need not fear.

Will you look at me and answer the question?

He has shown that he has suppressed the truth in this House. And any Member who has suppressed the truth really has done the most dishonourable conduct.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I am going to insist on your ruling. Let it be on record. If you are making a motion, a complaint, that I suppressed the truth on the 30th July in not presenting that signed statement to this House, well, do so. Do so, and refer it to the Committee of Privileges and I will answer it. But now you are saying (or I thought you were saying) --- An hon. Member: "Thought"? Another hon. Member: Out of order.

But if you did not say it, have the courage, my man. Have the courage to say whether you said it or you did not say it. I am asking you for the last time: are you saying that I was a party to all this fabrication?

He did not say it.

These are the desperate efforts of a man who is sinking deeper and deeper into the quicksands of falsehood, lies and untruth. Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to proceed. Can I ask the Member to sit down?

I want an answer to my question.

What was your question, Mr Jeyaretnam?

I want an answer to this question: is the Minister saying in this House that I fabricated the whole thing, that is, I got Lim Poh Huat to make a false statement to Percy Seneviratne, then I got Percy to come and see me knowing that it is a false statement and then I raised it in this House? Is he saying that or not?

I did not hear it.

You did not hear it?

That is what you say.

Is he saying that?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that interesting question will be answered in the Committee of Privileges. What I said --- Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Can you ask him to sit down, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Will you let the Minister finish first?

I want an answer to my question.

Please sit down.

Are you saying it or not saying it?

Mr Speaker, Sir, can you ask him to sit down?

As I said, Mr Jeyaretnam, I did not hear it.

I thought he said I was a party to the fabrication.

No. He was not referring to you.

Sit down, please!

Nobody said it, is it?

Can you ask him to sit down, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Sit down, Mr Jeyaretnam. He did not say it.

He can't even look at me straight in the face.

I do not relish looking at people who tell untruths.

Order, order. Sit down, Mr Jeyaretnam!

He can't look at me straight in the face.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are desperate efforts of a man who is sinking into quicksands of falsehood and untruth. [Interruptions]

Let the public decide. See you at the end of 1988, whether you get elected or not.

Let us have some order in the House.

I mean, all these silly statements about me.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I proceed without interruption?

Yes, carry on.

What I said was that there was a contradiction between the date mentioned by Mr Percy Seneviratne and the date mentioned by the Member for Anson in this House. And I then said that such contradictions will arise when persons are involved in fabrication. That is what I said. The Member for Anson jumps up to make further statements. It may be a psychological quirk of mind.

Are you saying it or not?

It is up to him to admit.

Up to you.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I now want to make my second point. He has made it clear that the undated signed statement of Mr Percy Seneviratne was given, according to him, in July. According to Mr Seneviratne, end of March. Whichever date we take it, it is after ---

Towards the end.

Towards the end. Whichever date we take it, it is clear that it was after the sitting of 18th March when the Member for Anson ---

After the whole Budget sitting.

Yes. My question then is: why did the Member mislead us? Because on the 29th July, when I raised this matter, the Member for Anson told us that he had raised this matter in this House. Why? And he said: 'I have a signed statement given to me by a person whose integrity I respect, who says in his signed statement that he had an appointment with this man and this man never turned up that Sunday morning and, in front of him and two others, told this man that he had been arrested by Joo Chiat Police Station after midnight. So I have a signed statement from a man, as I said, whose integrity I respect.' He told us that the basis for his having made that statement when he made the complaint was because he had a signed statement, and now it is clear that the signed statement was well after the Parliamentary sitting. So he has misled. So in sum, Mr Speaker, he has suppressed the truth on Wednesday, he has misled us on 29th July.

Make your complaint.

Yes.

Refer it to the Committee of Privileges.

All right, Mr Jeyaretnam. Sit down and let the Minister finish.

I have not finished, Mr Speaker, Sir.

May I answer this slanderous allegation again.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the investigation will continue. There are many contridictions in the stories given by the parties concerned. We will get to the bottom of it. When the Committee of Privileges meets, we will find out who has fabricated in this conspiracy to hoodwink Parliament.

These snide remarks of the Minister that I did not inform the House, that I had a signed statement or that I told the House that I had a signed statement before I raised it, arises simply out of his twisted interpretation of what I told Parliament. I said I had raised this on information given to me by this man and I said I had a signed statement from him. And it did not mean that I was saying I had a signed statement - don't smile with your smirk - it did not mean that I had a signed statement before I said it. The information came from him before I raised it. Does he deny that? The information came from him before I raised it and the signed statement was after that, confirming everything that he had told me.

Mr Speaker, the Member never said on 29th July that he did not have a signed statement at the time he made the complaint. He told us, and I am prepared to have television and the video set brought in again to play the quotation, he told us the basis on which he made the statement was that he had a signed statement.

No, no, no. I have information.

Shall we bring in the tape?

I said I had a signed statement.

That's right.

I had a signed statement but ---

Why did he not tell us that that signed statement (a) was undated, (b) that he had it, as he now says, in July, a few days before Parliamentary sitting presumably, conveniently?

Not a few days.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the facts condemn the Member for Anson.

Well, again, may I object to this? The matter has been referred to the Committee of Privileges. Is the Minister to go on making these monstrous statements in this House committing, as it were, in the references of them, abuses of privilege? Now he is trying to look at me. Now you have the courage, do you, in the seat of your chair? Or you are still not able to look at me? Sly man.

We have now reached such pitiful standards of debate on the part of the Member for Anson.

Whose pitiful standards are you talking about?

He not only suppresses the truth but he is afraid of the facts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we must put an end to this.

Exactly.

Either he stops making these allegations here or --- [Interruptions].

Mr Jeyaretnam, carry on, please.

Either he withdraws and stops making these allegations here, or I want your ruling on this as to whether he is permitted or not, in view of the fact, I have said this before several times, that the matter is now before the Committee of Privileges. So how can he go on saying the man stands condemned, the man stands this, he is a fabricator, he is everything, even before the Committee of Privileges has inquired into it and makes its report. Can we not have a ruling from you, Sir, on this?

Let us bring this matter to an end and let the Committee decide what is to be done.

Thank you. Let the Committee decide. 11.29 am

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [31st July, 1986], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." - [Acting Minister for Community Development and Minister of State, Ministry of Communications and Information]. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would you be good enough to tell me how much more time I have?

You have 10 more minutes.

Only 10 more minutes.

Goodness me, you used 50 minutes yesterday.

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir, if it displeases you that I spoke for 50 minutes. But I need to speak on this. If I have 10 minutes, I must go quite fast on this. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was referring yesterday, to the speech made by the Minister at this function and I said he had made a press release and at that speech the Minister said that the decision had been taken after a very careful analysis of foreign press reporting on Singapore over many years. We made a press release asking whether the Minister had this very careful analysis and would he present it to Parliament when the Bill was debated. The Minister spoke for about 20 minutes yesterday and he has not presented this very careful analysis of foreign press reporting on Singapore over many years. Will he tell us whether such a very careful analysis does exist? And if it does exist, will he table it now before he sits down, after he speaks? Because we cannot have Ministers making statements outside and in this House which amount to misleading. We had the Minister for Home Affairs misleading the House when he read the Bill on the amendment to the Adoption Act. It was a complete misleading of the House. I know the House rejected my motion on it. But anyone could see that he misled the House completely. So was the Minister misleading his audience when he said the Government had made a very careful analysis over many years? If he was not I am saying, "Will you produce it now?" I am calling for it. And if you cannot produce it, it must mean that you do not have it and that you were lying.

I am not lying.

That he was lying to the audience.

You are referring to me all the time.

Sorry. It is the Minister.

Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. He says I was lying. Can he prove it?

I said if you cannot produce, it must mean that. So would he produce it, please?

That is illogical.

That is one point. The second point is this. I was talking about cutting off information from our own citizens and about releasing their minds and not locking them up. May I ask a question and may we have an answer to this? Would the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister of Singapore contents himself for his daily information only on the Straits Times and the local press? May we have the information? Does he just read that, or does he also read the Inter- national Herald Tribune and the Asian Wall Street Journal? I should be very surprised to hear that he only contents himself with the Straits Times and the Chinese press. If the Prime Minister should have this for his education, his enlightenment, why should the citizens be denied it? On domestic politics, the Minister was delightfully vague when he touched on domestic politics. May I ask specific questions of the Minister? And will he reply to these specific questions when he replies at the end of the debate on this Bill? Is it domestic politics or is it interference with domestic politics if a foreign journal were to criticize the lack of caring in Singapore for the unfortunate midst in our community? Is that interference in domestic politics? Second question. I hope the Minister is taking note. Is it interference in domestic politics if the foreign newspaper should say that the society in Singapore is being engineered, that there is engineering going on at the behest of the Prime Minister and the Government, that people are being made to fit into moulds prepared by the Prime Minister? Is that interference in domestic politics? Third, is it interference in domestic politics if they should say that the Secretary-General of the trade union movement is a Minister of the Cabinet and then go on to criticize it and to say that there cannot be any genuine labour movement in Singapore because of that? Would the Minister please answer these questions? And then he says, "The Government doesn't want to use a sledgehammer to kill a fly." What he is saying is, "Of course, we have got the laws to deal with the foreign press. But we don't want to use them." That is the clearest admission we could have from the Government that anything that has been reported by the foreign press did not come within the scope of enabling a prosecution against the press under the Sedition Act or the Internal Security Act. Of course, they can also be taken to task for contempt of court. So what the Minister is saying, "Whatever they are writing does not really come under these laws. So we have got to have something else now." In other words, suppress information from the people of Singapore. The tragedy is that it is the more serious papers that will be shut out, not the cheap sensational journals. It is papers like the Financial Times that might suffer which criticize Singapore. It is papers like the Asian Wall Street Journal. I can see the Asian Wall Street Journal is clearly on the hit list. It is those journals which will suffer. And who will suffer as a result? It is the Singaporeans. About the local press, the responsible local press, one can see how responsible they are over the reports that have appeared in the papers over the last few days. That, according to the Government, is a responsible press. Does the Minister know of the telephone conversations I have had with members of the public who say they are disgusted, sick, with what they read in the papers. And they say, "They take us to be fools, the Straits Times." Let me just give two illustrations. When was it that I forced an admission from the Prime Minister? I had to force it out of him that, as a reasonable man, he was left with the view that Mr Michael Khoo was transferred because he had made many mistakes and acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong. He says, "I agree. That's what I said." Does the Straits Times carry that forced admission of the Prime Minister? That is the most telling point in the whole debate.

Mr Jeyaretnam, your 10 minutes are up.

May I just have one more minute, Mr Speaker, Sir?

No. 11.39 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the First Reading of this Bill, many arguments have been advanced against the Bill, some of which have been repeated in this House. Typically, they fall into the following categories: (1) The Bill will restrict free access to information. (2) By introducing this Bill, it is implied that Singaporeans are not able to determine for themselves what is true reporting and what is false. (3) This Bill is ineffective since its impact on the publishers would be minimal as circulation revenue hardly covers cost. I will take each of these points in turn. The Member for Anson has dwelt on the first two points extensively. He asserted that Singaporeans would lose their right to access of information under this Bill. Let us look at the facts. In this age of instantaneous satellite telecast, the world is indeed getting smaller.

It is value criticisms, opinions.

What is happening in the far corners of the world can be viewed in the other part of the world at the same time. For instance, during the recent World Cup games in Mexico, we all witnessed grown men coming to work with sleepy eyes for staying up very early in the morning watching the telecast of the games. Furthermore, computers are becoming more dominant in the information storage, distribution and transmission. With computer networks spanning the globe, information flows freely across national boundaries. Over the computer networks, millions of characters will flow every second across the wire. And it is close to impossible to regulate such flow of information. Any attempt to do so, in fact, would be futile. Furthermore, there is nothing in this Bill that will restrict the free flow of information, particularly when they are transmitted in electronic form. So free flow of information exists and will still continue to exist in Singapore. When the Member for Anson was arguing his point on the free flow of information yesterday, I pointed out to him that he was contradicting himself by stating, on one hand, the world is getting smaller and, on the other hand, because of this Bill, the freedom of information is endangered. He countered by saying that he was not talking about news items. Indeed, he was talking about judgment, opinion and analysis. So there it is, he is not really talking about freedom of information in general. He is talking specifically about freedom of information of judgment, opinion and analysis.

That is all for information. What others think about it.

And whose judgment, opinion and analysis is he referring to?

Others.

Foreigners' judgment.

Yes.

Foreigners' opinions and foreigners' analysis.

What is wrong with that?

This is precisely what this Bill is addressing, consistently biased foreign judgment, opinion and analysis. So when the Member for Anson says that without freedom of information, we cannot have creativity, he is not referring to the freedom of information but freedom of foreign JOA (judgment, opinion and analysis). Is he saying that, without these foreign JOAs, Singaporeans cannot have creativities? I think if he is saying so, it is an insult to all Singaporeans. I believe we can count on Singaporeans to form their own judgment and their own opinion. Whether one or two publications would be affected by the Bill is not going to restrict or affect the amount of information flowing into Singapore. And Singaporeans will continue to have access to all the information and facts they need to form their own judgment and opinion. Moreover, who are the Singaporeans who subscribe and read foreign publications? By and large, they are the lawyers, doctors, lecturers, engineers and executives in the private and public sectors. These are the well-educated, well-read, well-travelled, Singaporeans and they are trained to think logically. In short, they are the elite of our country, the decision makers. So if you can trust the destiny of our nation in the hands of these people, surely we can trust them to have the faculty, the intelligence and the logical thinking to read for themselves and to come to a logical conclusion, to decide what is biased reporting and what is not. While the individual can be counted on to think logically, the mood of the collective readership of a publication can be manipulated by systematically focussing the consciousness of the reader on certain issues and by the proper choice of headlines and photographs. This is what this Bill is all about, Mr Speaker, Sir, to prevent foreign manipulation of public opinion. Still, under the Bill, foreign judgment, opinions and analysis will continue to be accessible and available since the declared publications will still be allowed to circulate in Singapore. Even then the instruments of information, reproduction and transmission, such as photocopiers and facsimile machines, are readily available and accessible in Singapore. Interesting judgment, opinions and analysis can be transmitted, copied and distributed at very low cost. We can count on the resourcefulness of Singaporeans that this article will find their way into the hands of interested parties. Another form of information exchange that is also becoming more common nowadays is the computer bulletin board. This is a private information centre where a user with a home computer can dial-up the bulletin computers and produce the information at leisure. Before the Monitor ceased publication, we may recall that it indeed operated a bulletin board where a user could dial-up for news and other interesting tidbits. Mr Speaker, Sir, via all the means I have mentioned and some that I did not and some that I am ignorant of, it is clear that access to information will continue to remain free. The net effect of this Bill is that Singaporeans will still get to read whatever interest them. But the fact that they are reading this article will not show up in the circulation statistics of anybody. This brings me to the argument why we should bother about reducing the number of copies in circulation. One part of the argument is that the impact would be minimal because the revenue generated by the sales hardly covers cost. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is clear that whoever advanced this argument knows very little about the newspaper and publication business. For many newspapers or publications, while it is true that circulation revenues hardly cover distribution costs, it is also true that the major revenue of any commercially operated publications is derived from advertisement. And advertisement revenue is the function of, firstly, the number of copies subscribed and who the subscribers are, as well as the number of copies sold at the newsstands. The higher the circulation, the wealthier the readership, the greater is the demand for advertisement space by businesses and the more one can charge for carrying the advertisement. The fact that some publications, such as weekend newspapers, are distributed free clearly illustrates this. Since any commercially operated publications must be profitable to remain in business, circulation figures are indeed watched very carefully. In short, circulation is what makes or breaks a publication. The Singapore readership with its high income level and large disposal income is a prime target group for consumer product companies doing business in this region. I think one does not have to be a successful businessman to realize that, for any publication with a substantial circulation in Singapore, its Singapore circulation figures are very important to its profitability indeed. So one might ask that if circulation is so important, why would any publication, which is not politically funded and motivated, consistently adopt a rabble-rouser stance towards all the countries that it has circulation in? A journalist would say that it is for the freedom of speech, justice, human rights, etc., all lofty idealistic concepts. But if one asks a publisher, his interest would be to sell his newspaper or his magazine. How to do so in a crowded field of publications? Well, one has to be different, to stand out by coming out with catchy titles and controversial articles. Thus, the editorial policy would be to project a perception in the reader's mind that the publication's articles are probing and thought-provoking. But in spite of all this, the ultimate aim must be to increase the circulation and thereby improving the bottom line. To this end, one finds articles written in some foreign publications touching on issues that are sensitive in a multi-racial and multi-religious society like Singapore, issues that, by national consensus, all responsible Singaporeans consider too sacrosanct to debate in a very careless manner. In pursuing their own ends, some of these foreign journalists are playing havoc with our nation building process, while all the while behaving self-righteously under the delusion that they are the guardians of truth and liberty. While Singaporeans can be counted to sift out the prejudices from the fact, the same cannot be said of foreigners with a little background understanding of Singapore. These foreigners will arrive at a distorted impression of Singapore and among them there could be potential investors. Even if one single potential investor is so influenced, then the efforts by EDB, TDB, etc, to project Singapore as a good place to invest will be wasted. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is really no reason why such foreign publications should continue to profit at our expense. With the ability to restrict the circulation of foreign publications which consistently present a biased view of Singapore, the Bill will provide an effective leverage against them. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe this Bill is appropriate and will be effective in dealing with these publications. 11.52 am

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to join in the debate? I rise to oppose the motion. May I, first of all, be allowed to make certain comments on what the Member for Bukit Timah has just said. He has made such sweeping statements about the foreign press. I am not protecting the foreign press in any way and I have to declare that I have got no connections with any foreign press. But let us hear what the Member for Bukit Timah has said. He says that the foreign press has consistently given biased judgment, opinions and analysis. Is this true?

The Minister is going to produce it.

Yes, I think it is high time that the Government should produce such evidence.

Point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Chiam, point of clarification by Dr Wang.

I stand by what I said and I would like the Member to point out where I said, "All foreign publications consistently present a biased view of Singapore."

I have just said that he said that the foreign press consistently gave biased judgment, opinion and analysis. Perhaps he should produce the evidence and not just make sweeping statements. I do not think this is true, especially when we are referring to prestigious foreign journals, like the London Times, or the New York Wall Street Journal, or Newsweek or Time Magazine. Dr Wang Kai Yuen rose -

Another point of clarification, Mr Chiam. Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat.

Point of clarification. Will the Member clarify at which point did I say the foreign publications I am referring to are the prestigious publications he is referring to? I merely point out the facts and he is jumping to conclusions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, he made a statement and I am just pointing out that these prestigious journals do not engage in a campaign against Singapore. They certainly do not. And he says "foreign manipulation of public opinion." Again, is this true? What interest do journals have in wanting to manipulate our public opinion in Singapore? The word "manipulate" means there is a policy. It goes out, not just by chance but by planning. Certainly, I do not think you can accuse any foreign press of wanting to manipulate our public opinion. Then again he says that the foreign press are politically funded and motivated. These are very strong words.

Point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Chiam, another point of clarification from Dr Wang.

My statements are all printed in black and white and I will defend my speech against the Member for Potong Pasir if he is going to distort what I have said.

I had the opportunity, together with the Member for Anson, of meeting Mrs Graham. I am sure people who talk about the foreign press would know who Mrs Graham is. She is the owner of the Washington Post and also the owner of Newsweek. Newsweek, in fact, has been the subject of a contempt action in our courts. Certainly I cannot say that she is trying to manipulate our public opinion here or consistently present a biased judgment, opinion or analysis. They may, through the over-enthusiasm of some of their reporters, have occasionally. I think this is no fault of the reporters. Some reporters have been involved in contempt, slander suits, but that does not put them all in one sweep into one category, and say that they are out to create havoc in Singapore's nation building effort. Again I think this may not be very true. He says foreigners have little knowledge of Singapore. How does he know that? There are many specialists who have put Singapore under the microscope and studied Singapore. I think many of these foreigners know more about Singapore than many Singaporeans. They are specialists who come here and make a study of it. An hon. Member: Name one.

I say there are. Some hon. Members: Name one.

Well, if you want to know, there are people who have written books about Singapore. An hon. Member: Name one.

I think there is a Mr T.S. George who has written a book about Singapore. [Interruption] Mr Speaker, Sir, in a democratic country, I think the people have to be very slow in handing too much power to the government. I think, through the history of democratic countries, the people have learnt that. They do not want to hand every power to the government and they themselves have got nothing left. There must be a balance, a balance between the people and the government, a balance of power. We cannot hand over all powers through many legislations to the government in which the government can act, almost literally if it so wishes, in any way it likes; even in this small amendment which I shall refer to. So I think I should ask the people of Singapore to be very slow in giving too much power to the Government. Of course, we have got two Opposition Members here and we always are watching the amendments to the various Acts here which come in fairly quick sequences. The Backbenchers here may on the one hand rise and oppose the amendment but on the other hand they vote for it. What sort of Members are they? Where is their integrity? I think they should resign. If I were them, I would resign. On the one hand, they propose a stand, "This is what I believe", loud and clear, over television, over the press. They say so. But when it comes to voting, they vote against exactly what they have said. Are we breeding such Members of Parliament ---

That is the society the Government wants.

--- without any honesty in their beliefs? They only say. They only speak out. But it has been said, people will judge you by what you speak, and what you do also. So if Members who have got some opinions and who feel that certain amendments should not be passed in the interest of Singapore, then I would urge them to be fearless and vote against those amendments. I think this is good for Singaporeans. We cannot breed a double-faced Singapore type of person. In a later part of the day, perhaps when we debate on the HDB we will show that, in fact, even Government bodies tend to take different views of one certain policy. This is the sort of society we are breeding. It is not often true that the interest of a political party coincides with the interest of the nation. I think this can be said to be quite true. What is the interest of a political party? Of course, the interest of a political party is to be in power all the time, as many years as possible, and it will do all sorts of things to make sure that it is in power. Balanced against that, we have the interest of the nation. What sort of nation do we want to build? Do you want to continue to have this paternalistic style of government in Singapore where every citizen has to be told what to read, how to think, how to behave? Do we want to continue all this while? This amendment is exactly what it intends to do.

Faceless society.

You cannot read this. You can only read what is printed in the Straits Times or the Chinese press. This is preserving the paternalism in Singapore. Of course, this amendment is against the free flow of information. Of course, it is against freedom of the press. There is no two-way about it and we say we are going to make Singapore a brain centre. How can we make a brain centre when we restrict information? You must look at the good, the bad, the ugly, then you can have a good brain. You grow plants in a green house and you expect the plants to be sturdy. It is those plants that are planted outside, having been beaten by the wind, the rain, the snow, the hail and can still stand firm, these are the plants that we can say are really strong. Our people are still being kept in the green house, and how can we have a brain centre in Singapore? We want an education centre. It is not in the interest of the country to extend Police powers, to de-politicize the people, to live in fear. How can we have a vibrant, dynamic society when we restrict information? On the one hand, we have got the interests of the nation. These are the things that we want to build. But on the other hand, we have got the interests of the political party. It does not want too many people who are politically motivated and who have got plenty of knowledge of politics. What does this amendment want to do? It really wants to blacklist all foreign journals that do not speak well of the PAP. That is all, no more, no less. What happens if the foreign journals engage in the domestic policies of Singapore but speak highly of the PAP? Will they be restricted?

No. 1 seller.

Yes. Of course, they will be allowed. It is only when they propound views which the PAP does not think suit them, views which are perhaps canvassed by the Opposition, that they say these papers are engaging in the domestic policies of Singapore. How are you going to judge this sweeping law "engaging in the domestic policies of Singapore"? Who is going to judge? Are we going to have a panel? Are we going to have a few persons to say, "Well, this is engaging in domestic policies and this is not?" Who is to set the rules? It is obvious. This is a political piece of legislation, no more, no less. This is to curb views which are against the Government. Once they curb views against the Government, they have got this amendment here which says "declare them foreign newspapers." Blacklisted. That is all. And once they are blacklisted, they are finished. The most you can carry is five copies, and even when you carry five copies of this newspaper, you have got to explain that you are not going to sell and you are not going to distribute them. The onus of proof is on you. They are finished and if they really want to publish again, they have to come to the Minister begging, "Please. We would not publish that kind of news again." This is coercion, no more, no less. At one time, I was told, some newspapers went into Indonesia with whole paragraphs blackened out. What sort of impression do I have of that country? I say that is a terrible country, of course. They openly declare that it is a guided democracy. They are quite sincere about it. They said, "We are a guided democracy." So are we having a guided democracy in Singapore now? The Minister may restrict the sale or distribution of each issue of any declared foreign newspaper granted approval. Once a declared foreign newspaper gets approval under the new sub- section 18A(2), the Minister may require such number of copies as he thinks fit "to be marked in such manner as he may direct." What does that mean? It means that he says, "All right. All these paragraphs, all these sentences will have to be blacked out before you can distribute." So one of these days when we open the pages of a foreign journal, we might say "Why are all these pages marked in black?" And the people will get even more curious. They want to know why this is blacked out. It is obvious. Curiosity is part of human nature. And what will foreigners who come to Singapore as tourists think when they buy a journal from the airport and open it up and see certain places are blacked out? What is their reaction? Their first reaction is that there is censorship in Singapore. It may not be, but this is how an objective and reasonable person will react and foreigners ---

Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is the hon. Member referring to actual cases of partial censorship? Or is he referring to hypothetical cases that exist in his imagination?

The Member for Whampoa is a professor. I think he can read this new subsection (4) in page 2 of the Bill, and this is the power that is going to be given to the Minister. This is the power that he will have and he can exercise that power by blacking out any part of a declared foreign newspaper if he likes. Is he going to deny that? I am saying that if this piece of legislation is passed in this House and he exercises the power, this is exactly what will happen. We want to encourage tourists to come to Singapore and I am just painting a scenario that can happen. Many of these tourists are not just ordinary persons. They are thinking persons. They talk, they publish, they write when they visit a country and they will go home, maybe to Norway or some of the other less known traditional places where our tourists come from. They will go home and write, "I made a visit to Singapore. The place was clean. There are many tall buildings. Nice beautiful cars. But they have also press censorship". They will say this. And I am not surprised if they said that. Just one statement like that when they go back to a country which has strong democratic institutions, how would the people there think of Singapore? They would think, "There is a Police state over here." Do the Minister and all the legislators here in this Parliament want to create this kind of impression of Singapore? The Minister says the purpose of this Bill is to curb people printing or playing up on racial sensitivities and highlighting the problems of a minority race. Then he says that they will discredit some of our accepted institutions, like the courts. The third one is interesting. He says, "foreigners may impose their views of freedom on Singaporeans by not taking into account the local conditions." What does this last one really mean? I do not understand.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Member wants to quote me, he should quote it correctly, especially the last one.

It is definitely the views of freedom of foreigners and they have not taken into account the local conditions.

Can the Member please quote the whole section or the whole statement that I made about this point?

I got it straight from the Straits Times "when it imposes its own ideas of press freedom without understanding the nature of Singapore society." Is that correct now?

In the earlier statement he made, Sir, he missed out a very critical word, ie, press freedom. He said "impose its own ideas of freedom" which is quite different from "its own ideas of press freedom." I think the Member does not understand.

Press freedom. I still do not understand what the Minister means by "own ideas of press freedom". Do we have a different type of press freedom in Singapore? Obviously, we have. The sort of press freedom in England, the sort of press freedom in Australia, the sort of press freedom in America, is obviously different from the press freedom in Singapore. What type of press freedom do we want to follow? Russia or China? Since you are against press freedom of the West, I would like to ask the Minister, "What sort of press freedom does Singapore really want to have?" I think the Minister afterwards in his reply should let the House know of what he has in mind. But is it necessary to amend the law? There is already enough law and it has been published in our local newspapers. There is enough law already to curb all these problems. On racial sensitivities, I think the Internal Security Act is taking care of that. There is no communist threat to Singapore these days. So what is the Internal Security Act for? Perhaps the Minister for Home Affairs can tell us. I believe it is to curb the communal problems, and this is the No. 1 problem. Why do you need to amend the law? Then what about interference in our institutions, especially our courts? There are already precedents. Newspapers which have printed matter affecting the impartiality of our courts have been hauled to the court and charged, and they have apologized. What more do they want? What extra powers do they want? After being charged in court and fined and apologized, do you think they will continue to print matter which will affect the impartiality of our courts? Certainly not. They are responsible newspapers. This last one here - he says that there are certain foreign newspapers which would "want to impose its own ideas of press freedom without understanding the nature of the Singapore society." How can they do that? I think most of the press have appeared at least to side the Opposition in Singapore or write in favour of the Opposition because of the character of the mature Western countries which is a tendency to side the underdog. I do not think they want to manipulate our political system here. They look at Singapore and say, "Poor chaps, the Opposition is being downtrodden. All right. Why don't we just give them a boost?" I think that's about it. I do not think it is a massive campaign to manipulate. I am saying that if they did it, it is because of their sense of always wanting to assist the underdog. That is all. What is wrong with that? Any sportsman would know this kind of a thing. It is obviously on your side. You do not play sports. You do not know. What is wrong with that? I think that is it and no more. If there are many occasions in which the Minister thinks that foreign reporters have been trying to impose their ideas of press freedom here, then I think he should give us examples. Let us have them. Which are the articles he is referring to in which they are trying to impress their own ideas of press freedom in Singapore? I think he should come out with that because this amendment is a very serious one which curbs a lot of not only foreign press but Singaporeans. If I remember rightly, Police powers are given to certain officers of the Government, Postal Superintendent, officers of Customs, Police officers, any Police officer, and, of course, other officers authorized by the Minister. They can stop anybody and check and see whether there are declared foreign newspapers. One of these days when I walk along High Street with my bundle, it is quite legal for a police officer to stop me and say, "All right, let us have a look at what is inside? I am checking to see whether you have got a declared foreign newspaper." An hon. Member: Playboy.

Speak for yourself. This is what it is. It is quite clear there. This Police officer has a very legitimate duty. We cannot fault him. It is the law. This is the sort of power we want to give to our police officers. Of course, the standard check in Singapore today is, "Let us have a look whether you have got an identity card. See that you are not an illegal immigrant." That is one of the Police powers. There are many other Police powers. But we are now giving an additional power to the Police and we cannot complain. We cannot complain against the Police. It is there. The Government has already powers. If any foreign journalist whom it thinks is twisting facts, within 24 hours his stay in Singapore can be removed and out he goes. This is being done. I think the latest one was when we had this Hotel New World disaster and this Filipino reporter reported that a rescuer, I think, demanded money before he would drag the victim out. She did not check the facts before she filed that report. And she was sent out, I believe, was it 48 hours? So the Government has already powers by just using Immigration laws. The Member for Anson has pointed out and asked many questions of the Minister. How are you going to classify the things that are involved in domestic politics of Singapore? Perhaps I could add to that list. If a foreign newspaper says that the Government is interfering too much in the private enterprise, is that involving itself in domestic politics? Or if a foreign newspaper says that the invisible hand of the Government is, in fact, interfering in the wage system, not allowing the free market forces to work but controlling wage, and also if it should complain that the Government has put up high costs of production in Singapore, or it says that 2.6 million brains are better than one - I am sure the Minister has read that before - do all these things constitute involving in the domestic policies of Singapore? I think Singaporeans must be allowed to think and decide for themselves. We have already seen recently Ministers going to our schools, to our polytechnics giving them lectures, trying to put the Government's point of view across. If the Government has already put up efforts - Ministers going out to give talks to our students, university students, and polytechnic students and, of course you also have the assistance of the TV, the press to sway public opinion - why are you so afraid to allow just a few articles appearing in the foreign press which may deviate from established Government policies? Why would you not allow some kind of a balance? Give a chance to these students whom you speak to. Let them see that there is a different point of view. Is the Government afraid because of the last election results? You will remember that the pendulum has swung. The pendulum has swung 12.3% towards the Opposition and the momentum has already been gathered, and you are trying to stop the momentum. Is it what it is all about? You are afraid that if the momentum of the pendulum is allowed to swing to its logical end, PAP will be thrown out. Is that what you are afraid of? This piece of legislation is not against Singapore's interest. It is against the PAP's interest. So I will have to oppose it because, on balance, whether or not this piece of legislation will benefit Singapore for all the policies that you want to make Singapore to be - a vibrant, dynamic society, brain centre, you want it to be an information centre and the rest of it, I think the balance will definitely weigh in the interest of Singapore not to have this legislation. And I would certainly urge Backbenchers, if they have got any opinion at all, to speak up, and if they speak against, I would urge them certainly not to vote for it.

You do not understand.

That is the thing, you see. You have just said out, "You do not understand the system here." What is the system here? As shown in this Parliament, you want all your Backbenchers to speak up, to voice their opinion. And none of them voted against. In fact yesterday we had only one brave ex-Deputy Prime Minister who dared to abstain.

Only abstain.

It would seem to be normal if a few of that one or two voted against, but not all, like a sheep being led down the garden path. An hon. Member: Slaughtered.

Yes, to be slaughtered one of these days, as probably you have, being toppled from top posts. [Interruption] I thought you were once very close to the Prime Minister. Now you are sitting very far away from him.

What relevance does that have to the debate, may I ask?

This is in reply to your remark. This piece of legislation is exactly a reflection of what Singapore is going to be. You have this control, more controls, just as has been illustrated in this House. I do not think big disaster will come to any of the Backbenchers if one or two of them, let us see, are brave enough to vote against a piece of legislation. And if they are really convinced of that, I would really applaud them and it would be a very good day for Singapore. Thank you.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the Member for Potong Pasir does not understand parliamentary democracy. As it is practised in Britain, and as we have adopted here in Singapore, any Member of the ruling Party may express their opinions freely. But there are times when the whip is not lifted and they are expected to vote together with the Government. There are times when matters of conscience are at stake and the whip is lifted and then the Members can vote in accordance with their conscience.

On a point of clarification.

Sir, I do not have much time. I would not give way.

I think you know parliamentary procedure. You have got one hour.

I am not giving way, Sir.

Sit down, Mr Chiam.

Why are you afraid?

He has had his say. Allow me to have my say. I have a few other questions for the hon. Members of the Opposition. Let me ask them: are there any areas of national interest on which all of us, both PAP and Opposition, can stand together? Name one issue that both of them, or either of them, have in this House expressed support for as a national issue worthy of a common stand. The Member for Potong Pasir referred to a case of contempt of court. He referred to Newsweek, but I believe he was referring to the Asian Wall Street Journal sometime last year.

No. There was the Newsweek as well.

May I ask whether he and his colleague are questioning, again, the integrity of our courts? May I ask whether they agree that there was contempt of court? Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

May I be allowed to finish speaking first, then you can have your say?

You asked questions and we try to answer. And you say, "No, no."

I did not ask you to stand up immediately to answer. Some questions are rhetorical, do you not understand?

You don't want answers.

I know what your answers are.

Oh, you know that! So why ask?

I know what your answers are. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has pointed out that we have over 3,700 foreign publications in Singapore and it is only a very small minority that have caused trouble to us. In fact, Sir, most journalists and most publications have been responsible in their reporting. I personally have great admiration for journalism as a profession. Journalists have to get access to the latest information and many a time they have to write on areas outside their expertise. How they do so, sometimes I do not know. But they do so and most of them do so quite well. But therein lies a problem, especially with foreign journalists who come to Singapore for the first time. They need to have access to people, the right people for the right information. But at the same time one must sympathize with Government Ministers. With so many hundreds or thousands of journalists banging on their doors asking for interviews, it is just impossible for them to see all of them. But then what is the reaction of those journalists who are denied access to the relevant Minister? Do they get slighted and then end up with biased reporting? Or do they merely go on to report inadequately, based upon inadequate information? I believe we find both categories of journalists; both kinds of reactions have been manifested. What then is the solution, if there is any solution? I believe one such solution is to have public relations officers for each Ministry, statutory board (I know some of them already have), who can meet these journalists and provide them with up-to-date information and with explanations of the rationale of Government policies and the changes thereof? But at the same time we should be mindful of what the Minister said - that magazines and newspapers are a very powerful tool for influencing public opinion, and anybody who exercises such power must at the same time be responsible. And if they do not themselves exercise responsibility, then somebody must constrain them into so doing. Sir, even in terms of local newspapers, and commonly in other newspapers as well, you will get a headline on a subject on the front page of the newspaper, some error is made either intentionally or otherwise. And when a complaint is lodged, the next day or a few days later, a small correction appears on the back page. Perhaps, Sir, there should be a law requiring equal space and equal prominence for correction of such mistakes, especially when such mistakes are to the detriment of the reputations of the injured parties. Sir, the Minister when he moved the motion for the Bill mentioned that he was concerned about manipulation and interference with local politics. He mentioned areas such as race, religion, local institutions such as our courts, ideas of press freedom. But I do not recall that he mentioned the right to quote Opposition Members of Parliament, no matter how obnoxious they are, how wrong their views are and so on and so forth. There is one important area which I had hoped he would touch upon and that was referred to by the Member for Potong Pasir, although he presented a different view, and that has to do with attempts at what I call economic sabotage of Singapore. Sir, we all know that Singapore has a very small open economy. We all know that it depends very much on the confidence we can generate on the part of foreign investors who then put their money into factories and other facilities in Singapore. And if that confidence were to be damaged, the economy would suffer and, of course, there would be political, social and other repercussions. Of course, Sir, it is not easy to identify when somebody is engaging in economic sabotage. But I want to refer to some recent reports from the Asian Wall Street Journal. I am not saying that they point conclusively to economic sabotage. All I say is that they raise certain questions in my mind, and if I were as suspicious as the Members for Anson and Potong Pasir, I would of course jump to the conclusion that there is economic sabotage but I am not about to. So let me refer to some of these articles. It is interesting, Sir, that the local stock market has made a strong recovery in the last two months, in June and July. It is also interesting that towards the end of June, there appeared a spate of articles in the Asian Wall Street Journal. I shall go over a few of the contents so that you may judge for yourself what is happening. On the 24th of June 1986 on page 1, there was an article by Stephen Duthie and the headline was "Investors wary of Singapore's New Look" and it begins: 'Has Singapore got a deal for you! Or so it hopes. Humbled by recession and shaken by regional competition, Singapore is bouncing back like a hungry barker at a county fair. The government has touched up a few old sales pitches and added some new ones. Now government officials are taking the new, improved act on the road in an attempt to attract investments from foreign concerns.' I quote again: 'Foreign investors are showing interest in the new look, but many of them are biding their time.' "We heard some of this a decade ago and a few of us got burned," says a European manufacturing executive, who requests anonymity.' And then on page 9 at the end, it says: 'A burst in new foreign investment won't solve all of Singapore's economic problems, Mr Watson says. The country still lacks "a fully conducive environment where entrepreneurship can flourish," he says. But that too "is going to take time."' That is one article. On June the 25th, the same Journal had a headline: "Property Slump Hurts Singapore Banks - Despite Real Estate Glut, Loans Flowed to Sustain Building Spree." It is based upon the property market report which was presented to Parliament sometime in March or April. In other words, a few months later. And on page 8, headline, "Singapore Banks Face More Bad Debts". Mind you, these articles were written at a time when the economy was showing signs of recovery and the stock market was buoyant. Thursday, June the 26th, page 1, "Surge of Stocks In Singapore Puzzles Analysts" by Helen E. White. And on page 6,""The real question is whether it's possible for Singapore's economy to take off in a vacuum, and the answer is probably no," the analyst says." Tuesday, July the 1st, 1986: "Singapore Sees End of High-Growth Era." And on page 11 on the same article: "Singaporeans Brace for Extended Slump." This was by June Kronholz who came to Singapore, I believe, a couple of months earlier than that, interviewed a number of people, including myself, and somehow put this delayed article on July 1st, 1986. Sir, I stated at the outset that I do not jump to the conclusion that these are indications of a sustained effort at economic sabotage. But the timing, with the stock market boom, suggests to me that there could be some correlation, some attempt at mischief to undermine confidence in this economy. Now, what defence do we have against such attacks? Singapore is a small country. So we take whatever steps that we can to defend ourselves. And what is wrong with the Government attempting to defend the integrity of Singapore and to protect the well-being of Singapore? Sir, I support the Bill.

Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Member for Whampoa himself is an economic expert. He is neither here nor there after reading all these quotes from the foreign journals. The point of clarification is this. Is he saying that there is economic sabotage? If not, say so. Do not just leave it in the air as if there is or there is not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the National University of Singapore we have a department called English Language Deficiency Department. I recommend a course for him.

Why are you afraid to answer?

Mr Speaker, Sir, by way of clarification to try to answer the Member for Whampoa's questions, could he repeat them again? I will answer them now. What is it that he wanted to know?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the Hansard is available and he can look at it.

Tell us now what you wanted to know. You now withdraw your questions, do you?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been expressed by the two Opposition Members that, with the passing of this Bill, freedom of speech and expression in Singapore will be in jeopardy. There are some who feel that we will be insulating ourselves from the views of foreigners about ourselves. Can this be so? Sir, may I just make three observations? Firstly, it is not the intention of the Bill to ban foreign publications totally. The aim is to restrict circulation and to deny profit to those who are consistently irresponsible in reporting. Our local journalists, I believe, being enlightened professionals will continue to have access to most publications. Likewise, those in the intellectual and academic circles, should these persons feel strongly that they agree with the views of the foreign press, I am sure they will have no hesitation in putting forth these ideas in print in their own publications. And we have thousands of local publications, all publicly air their views. However, the difference is that these are people with a vested interest in Singapore. They are Singaporeans and I believe they will be responsible in their reporting. The Opposition Member for Anson has made these remarks. "Why must the Government ridicule and humiliate our citizens?" See what he has said. He has labelled the press "a gutter press" and these are his remarks regarding the press: "no investigative journalism in Singapore; no ability to grasp the essentials". He is ashamed of the press in Singapore.

I am.

He asked whether ours is a responsible press. He calls our society a faceless society. Who is humiliating us, the Government or the Opposition Member? Mr Speaker, Sir, I think he has not only humiliated one or two persons, he has humiliated a whole profession, all our journalists, and this morning he has humiliated all Singaporeans. I asked myself, why?

I said the Government wants a society of faceless ---.

Mr Jeyaretnam, will you stop interrupting?

The members of the press have been so quiet towards his accusations. I tried to understand why they have not defended themselves. I realized that if they replied to these accusations, it may be perceived by the public that they are using their own columns to their own advantage. This is indeed self-discipline and a responsible press. The other point is that, if they replied to these accusations, it would only give credibility to these accusations. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to touch on the other two points briefly. Secondly, there are three million tourists or visitors to Singapore every year. We have thousands of expatriates from all over the world working in Singapore. Singaporeans make thousands of visits overseas every month. Can we remain insulated? I do not think so. Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been mentioned by my various colleagues that the world is now tuned in to each other. Modern telecommunications will keep us in touch with the world and we will not be insulated from the rest of the world. 12.38 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. It is quite unfortunate that time is running short. But compared to all other speakers who have spoken before us today, I have the benefit of knowing both sides of the world, so to speak. I was a journalist. I was an editor and now I am a Member of this House. I think there are two important points which the Opposition had failed to grasp from the amendment. One is their unequal exaggeration. We have put this Bill in perspective. We have stated earlier that there are three existing laws that could curb the press. But despite the presence of all the three laws, we have yet to ban publications continuously like many other more liberated societies. The Opposition had failed to identify that it is the motive behind the law that is more important. It is not purely having the law in your hand. If the motive of having those laws in our hand is to isolate Singapore from the entire world, as what the Opposition has claimed, I think Singaporeans would stand to examine the practice of this Government for the past 25 years. The fact remains that there was not a case. Point No. 2, Mr Speaker, Sir. As journalists, there are basic tenets that they have to follow. They have to be accurate. They have to be factual. Their comment has to be fair, "fair" meaning taking into account all points of view. This is where our definition of responsible and credible journalism differs. Credible journalism, in the eyes of the Opposition, means newspapers and publishers and journalists who at all times report glowingly, putting the Opposition into a position that they are the only champions of the poor Singaporean. We had a good example in a dear friend of the Member for Anson who had written at least three articles in the New Straits Times. One article praising him in a very glowing manner, creating a half-God in the Opposition Member for Anson, and on the other hand, putting down Singapore to an abysmally embarrassing situation. That is responsible journalism in the eyes of the Opposition. Let us be honest about the whole issue.

What about the Straits Times praising you?

The whole issue at hand is for us to educate the foreign newspaper owners that they cannot reap profit out of our misery. It is well and good to talk about the ideal of freedom of expression and so on and so forth. Let me give you just two examples. One example was that when the Prime Minister went to Sri Lanka we had one newspaper, of course, belonging to the Opposition, carrying a huge banner across ten columns saying"follow this white monkey, you go to hell". That is the extent of freedom of the press in which the Opposition is championing, a limitless, a boundless, freedom of expression. What is the cost? Everyone knows what has happened to Sri Lanka now. Another point worth noting, and this is from my own experience and many of us have our own experience. When I applied for a visa to go to the United States, of course in my passport then I was described as a journalist, I was given a six-month visa compared to other ordinary citizens who are given a five-year visa to the US, when I sat foot in Hawaii, the entry point of USA. The moment they saw that I was a journalist they asked me to give a written undertaking that I should not report anything going on in America. That practice is happening and that practice is being imposed by what the Opposition considered as the model of freedom of expression, the champion of world liberty. Such denial is a clear indication that the claim is not as true as what the Opposition said. The Opposition thought that Singapore is a suppressed society and we are building a green house here, that we are shutting out from the whole world. Is the Opposition not aware that anyone can come to Singapore on a social visit pass, write about Singapore, and fly off the country without any restriction? Tell me the instances where every journalist who comes into Singapore has got to give the reason for coming and an undertaking not to write stories about Singapore? I think these two examples, a very simple first-hand experienced example, would illustrate ---

On a point of clarification. Is the Member aware ---

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am only given five minutes to speak. The hon. Member for Anson has been given one hour to speak, I thought ---

You can have another 20 minutes after lunch.

Do sit down, Mr Jeyaretnam. The Member is not giving way.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that serves to illustrate how the Opposition in trying to criticize the Bill had gone beyond the bounds of reasonable and responsible argument by stating an excessive exaggeration in which even the press find it difficult to swallow. If such stunts are allowed in the press, we can imagine how our balanced, responsible, factual, accurate and fair press in Singapore would be tilted to one side and it goes down into the sewer. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are a lot of points I wanted to raise, but unfortunately time is so limited. I beg to support the Bill.

Sir, I must thank the various PAP Members for speaking on the Bill and supporting it. The Member for Bukit Timah talked about computer technology, satellite and he mentioned a new thing called computer bulletin board, and he asked whether the Member for Anson knows that with such a kind of technology we just cannot shut Singapore out from the rest of the world. But I am afraid his words are lost like water on a duck's back. I do not think the Member for Anson really understands this kind of technology. If he does, he would not say that we are shutting Singaporeans out. The purpose of this Bill, as I have said, is to restrict the circulation. The Bill is not to ban a publication. Singaporeans still can read the limited number of copies that are allowed in Singapore. They will be found in public libraries. So long as one person has access to it, anybody else can get a copy of it. It is quite simple, really, in this world of the photocopier. So let us be very clear about this. We are not shutting Singaporeans out from the rest of the world. It is not possible. Singaporeans travel. Thousands of them travel. Thousands of foreigners come here. Thousands of them work here. So it is not possible to shut Singapore out. This is just one of the deceptions of the Member for Anson, which I will talk about later. Newspapers are commercial organizations and that is why they have a profit motive. They are not a charity. They are not here to just tell the world or to tell Singaporeans about what is happening in the world at their own cost. No. They can even circulate the copies free of charge and yet be able to make money out of it so long as they get a wide circulation. There was an article just about two or three weeks ago in the Time Magazine which shows that you can give out free newspapers, journals, to thousands of people without collecting a cent. We have an example in Singapore, called the Weekend East. Those who live in the eastern sector of Singapore get a copy of the Weekend East free. How is it that they can do it free? Because they get advertisements. That is why they can give it out free. So newspapers are commercial organizations. They are not here to do us charity. For those publications I mentioned yesterday, Asiaweek, Far Eastern Economic Review, Asian Wall Street Journal, one copy out of seven of their total sales is sold in Singapore. Can they not, and will they not, hope to increase their circulation by writing more about local issues? If they do, do they have the free licence to do so, and impose or set the standard of press freedom, as we used to know in the Western world, on Singapore? I do not think so. Let me show afterwards what sort of press freedom there is in the West, what are the problems and issues that have caused people in the West with the kind of Western standard of journalism. The Member for Fengshan also said that we will only act against such a publication if it consistently attempts to manipulate and influence our people in local politics. We are not talking about one or two articles. We are talking about the consistency in the pattern of reporting. The experience of the Member for Kampong Kembangan shows that even in the Western world like the United States where press freedom and the First Amendment of the Constitution is in force, he as a journalist cannot just get in there and write anything he wants. Now, the Member for Anson. Yesterday he said that countries have held us in contempt. I do not know which country has held us in contempt. Does he know? He said he knows.

A lot of people have.

Tell me which country has held Singapore in contempt?

Perhaps the Minister forgets that the Socialist International was ready to throw Singapore out because it held the kind of democracy practised by the Singapore Government in contempt. Don't you know that they were ready to throw you out? An hon. Member: What country is that?

The Socialist International which comprise all the countries. An hon. Member: Which country?

Where? Where? Where?

Perhaps the Member for Anson would like to tell me where is this country called Socialist International? I studied Geography but I have not come across such a country.

Singapore at one time belonged to this. Singapore was an honoured member, and now he asks me, "Where is Socialist International?" The Prime Minister went to address this organization, and so Singapore at that time was a member. Then they decided - the Dutch, the British, all the democratic countries - decided that Singapore's practice was contemptuous.

He is not answering the question.

What do you mean I am not answering? I am answering it for you.

No, I do not think so, Sir.

You do not think so?

That is another example of his deception, which I will mention again afterwards.

Would the Minister point out what the deception is?

He is trying to deceive us that Socialist International is a country. That is a deception.

Oh, my God. Would he answer, was Singapore a member of this organization or not?

Sir, can you please ask the Member to sit down? An hon. Member: No, Singapore was not.

Singapore was never a member? An hon. Member: The PAP was.

Sir, I quoted the Member correctly because I took down those words that he mentioned. Anyway that is another matter. Sir, yesterday we saw the same old behaviour of the Member for Anson. We saw it today. We heard the same old tune yesterday, we heard part of it this morning, and he delivered it in the same old way, which we are all so familiar. It is like a taperecorder, playing the same stuff over and over again. That waffle was nothing new. From the froth I cannot find a strand of information, a strand of argument that really supports his rejection of this Bill. I cannot find it. The only point that he made was "we are shutting Singaporeans out". But how can we shut Singaporeans out when we even allow copies to come in? We allow journalists to come and stay, and live and work. How can we do that? That is, again, another distortion in his mind. Of course, it is not surprising because I do not expect ivory to come from canine mouth. That is a Chinese saying. I am just translating it. gou ju zhang bu chu xiang ya . I am no expert in Chinese quotations but I just learn a few words here and there. Remember there are 3,700 foreign publications and I have mentioned that. I think many of us also tune in to foreign broadcasting stations. There are quite a number of them around. There are foreign television stations. There are quite a number of them around too. With exposure to these foreign stations and foreign television, can we really shut ourselves out? There is no truth, therefore, that Singapore or the Government would deny Singaporeans of access to information. No foreign publication has been banned, except on moral grounds, except when it incites or it is against our religion or when it is of a communist nature. I do not have to defend the press when the Member yesterday made a tirade of the press. They are very capable of defending themselves. But sometimes I too feel that the press has given him ---

Order. It is 1.00 pm. I suspend this sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before we adjourned for lunch, I was talking about the local press and the tirade of the Member for Anson against our press. I said they are capable of defending themselves. But one point mentioned by the Member is that we are only fed with one view and this is the English press. We have actually more than one newspaper. We have the Chinese papers. We have the Tamil papers. We have the Malay papers. We also have many other foreign publications which are freely available here and the Government also has not stopped the Workers Party or the SDP from hawking its Hammer or Demokrat. So how could we just be fed with one view unless again he is trying to hoodwink us. He asked that our press should be a bit more investigative. We have seen an example of investigative press - the sorry saga of Mr Lim Poh Huat. But I think when newspapers get into investigative reporting, something may happen and, of course, that thing would be that the private lives of individuals will be completely exposed to the public view and sometimes through no fault of theirs, they will not be able to lead a normal life. If the press were to take up the suggestion of the Member to be investigative, maybe they can find out who Mr Percy Seneviratne is, what he has written about us. I think then people will know what this so-called man with integrity and respected by the Member for Anson has said about Singapore. Investigative press, Sir, is not new in America, the model of press freedom, so often championed and quoted by the Member. I just need to quote one paragraph from an article in the Time magazine of 12th December 1983, with the headline "Journalism Under Fire". This is the view of the people who wrote this article about press freedom and investigative press in America. I quote: 'They are rude and accusatory, cynical and almost unpatriotic. They twist facts to suit their not-so-hidden liberal agenda. They meddle in politics, harass business, invade people's privacy, and then walk off without regard to the pain and chaos they leave behind. They are arrogant and self-righteous, brushing aside most criticism as the uninformed carping of cranks and ideologues. To top it off, they claim that their behavior is sanctioned, indeed sanctified, by the U.S. Constitution.' The same article also carried the opinions of eight individuals who have in a way been the subject of an investigative press with the headline, "Your Story, but My Life". Let me just quote one of the interviews. This is on Richard Allen. I am sorry to bring this up, but I think Mr Richard Allen is well known. He was President Reagan's National Security Adviser in January 1982. He resigned from the job following allegations that he had improperly accepted gifts from Japanese journalists and businessmen. He was cleared of wrongdoing. This is what he said: 'We were held captive in our house by the media from roughly mid-November to early January. This was all day, every day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, wedding anniversary, birthdays. They would begin to come at about 5.30 in the morning. I would be forced to respond at 6.30 am upon leaving the house. When I had nothing to say, they tried other ways to get a story. A CBS reporter tried to question my six-year-old daughter Kimberley, on her way to kindergarten: "Is your daddy home?" My kids were afraid to go out. Another CBS correspondent tried to find out whether Japanese businessmen were paying my bill at my favorite sushi shop. He gave the man who runs the shop the impression he was from the government, and the man produced the bills, which I had paid myself. That was absolutely unforgivable.' 'The problem is that the process feeds on itself. The Washington Post would run a story outlining new and anonymous innuendos directed against me and the network news directors would all feel driven by competitive pressure to try to get a response. The remedy is self-restraint.' For those who are interested in an investigative press I would commend them to read this article. What is the Member for Anson's idea of a responsible press? We have the Asian Wall Street Journal, for example, whose circulation is one out of seven copies in Singapore. Over the last few days, since our debate in Parliament over the Commission of Inquiry, not a word has been printed in the Asian Wall Street Journal about this subject. Maybe they will do so later. Let me comment on the three questions that the Member for Anson asked me whether if the foreign press write about caring society ---

Lack of caring.

Lack of caring society, social engineering and the Secretary-General of NTUC and the Second Deputy Prime Minister is the same person. It is like asking me: Are snake bites poisonous? Will I get rabies if I were bitten by this dog? I do not know, unless you tell me what sort of snake it is; unless you tell me whether it is a mad dog. I cannot tell you without enough facts.

Point of clarification.

Sit down, please.

I am not asking for the effect.

He is not giving way, Mr Jeyaretnam.

The Member for Potong Pasir opposed the Bill. So roundly, he said. I cannot blame him. We have Mary and the little lamb or a little calf who is easily led by the nose by his friend. I cannot expect anything else from him. He does not listen very well too and I also cannot blame him. But as a lawyer who can read simple English, he cannot understand the proposed section 18A(4) of the amendment Bill. He says that under section 18A(4) we will be able to black out the whole paragraph, the whole page, the whole article. That is not what it says. Read it carefully. Maybe he should follow the Member for Whampoa's advice to take a proficiency course in English in the University. His idea of press freedom is, he says, "Why should we have a different standard of press freedom?" Of course, we must, because our standard of development, our progress, our economy, our culture, our society, they are all very different from the West. So when you have two different sets of circumstances, two different sets of values, you cannot have the same yardstick to measure them. Can you? The Member for Potong Pasir also mentioned his meeting with the Chairman and publisher of Newsweek and Washington Post; that both the Oppostion Members met her. I do not know what his point was. Maybe to inflate his own ego that he has met this publisher. But since he has met her, I presume that she must have given him her view of how an international press should operate and I hope that he has learned something from it. If he has not, maybe I would try to give an example of what is meant by an international press and how it should help the societies of the developing world. Kathryn Graham was here in the early part of February. On the 3rd February she was interviewed by SBC. SBC asked her whether she felt that in international reporting the development goals of countries have to be respected in the reportage. That was SBC's question and Mrs Graham said: 'Absolutely yes. I think that the northern press when it goes into the lesser developed countries or the middle income countries such as Singapore of course you have to respect the host country and you have to be sensitive to the issues there as you do everywhere.' Then she went on to say: 'I would say that there is a parallel in our own country when we are covering poor urban areas or black issues or even woman issues. At first I think the press has to be especially sensitive to whoever you are covering and to observe the regulations in the host country. It is absolutely right.' If the Member for Potong Pasir has not learned it, this is for his benefit.

What is the point in trying to bring this up?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is not to ban a foreign publication. This Bill is to allow the foreign publication that has meddled with Singapore's politics to even continue to circulate here. And when that publication is declared to have interfered or engaged in our domestic politics, it would still be allowed to be circulated and it will be available in our public libraries. So there is no question whatsoever of shutting our Singaporeans out from any information that is available in the world.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister, by way of clarification, if he will answer the other two questions which I posed to him. One, the very important question: does he or does he not have the very detailed analysis of foreign press reports over the last many years? Did he have it with him when he spoke at this function? Does he have it with him and will he produce it now? Secondly, would he answer the question that I asked him: does the Prime Minister of Singapore content himself only with the Straits Times and the Chinese press and does not read any of the foreign newspapers?

Sir, the question on the Prime Minister is best to have it asked of the Prime Minister. But even if the Prime Minister were to have all those publications available to him, does it mean that Singaporeans do not? They have. As I said, these publications are available. Not a single foreign Western press is banned unless it is on communist, moral or ideological grounds. So Singaporeans will continue to have access to these publications. Whether we would release the analysis, there is a Chinese saying too: da cao jing she, which means, if you are looking for a snake in the bush, do not go around beating the bush. When the time is due, when we decide to declare the publication as having been involved or engaged in our politics, we will make known the whole analysis; no doubt about that.

The question is: why does the Minister evade the question? Did he have with him at the time he spoke a very detailed analysis? If he did not have it, why does he not be honest enough to say, "I didn't have it." And would he then agree that I may say he has been completely untruthful?

The problem with the Member for Anson is that when he hears, he does not listen, when he looks, he does not see. Even if he sees and listens, he does not understand. If he does, he does not want to accept. When I said on 22nd January that we did an analysis, we did an analysis.

Did you have it with you? May I have it now?

Why should you have it? I have said, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when we decide to declare a publication --- Mr Jeyaretnam rose ---

Will you let him finish, Mr Jeyaretnam? You keep on interrupting.

--- as having engaged in Singapore's politics, we will make that analysis available.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister said that he had a very detailed analysis over many years. Does he have it with him now? May we have a look at it in this House now when we are debating this Bill?

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I have a clarification from the Minister, please? This is with regard to section 18A(4). He accuses me of not understanding English. I have no mistake here in the interpretation of section 18A(4): '... such number of copies as he thinks fit, and may require such copies to be marked in such manner as he may direct.' "Marked" means mark in any way to obviously blanco the parts that the Minister does not want. Otherwise, if you have got any other interpretation of this section, let us have it.

Sir, I am amazed at the level of comprehension of the Member for Potong Pasir. I do not intend to waste the time of this House on giving him a tutorial in English language.

Let us have it.

So I suggest that he takes the Member for Whampoa's advice and take up a course in the NUS.

Would the Minister concede that he has been untruthful, please, when he said that he had a very detailed analysis and he cannot produce it now? Will you concede?

This again is a rather tiresome thing. I have said that I have it.

Produce it now.

He says he wants to see it. There is no reason for me to show him now. If I want to bring it here, if I want to show it to him, who does he want to show it to? To his foreign journalist friends who are trying to do us in? Is that what he wants to do?

I say you do not have it. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I call for a Division, Sir.

Ring the Division bells. The House divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 2, Abstention, 1. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abbas Abu Amin Ho Kah Leong Abdullah Tarmugi Ho Tat Kin Ahmad Mattar Ibrahim Othman Ang Kok Peng Jayakumar, S. Barker, E.W. Koh Lip Lin Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Lai Tha Chai Chandra Das, S. Lau Ping Sum Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Lee Boon Yang Chew Heng Ching Lee Hsien Loong Chin Harn Tong Lee Yock Suan Ch'ng Jit Koon Leong Horn Kee Chua Sian Chin Lim Boon Heng Dhanabalan, S. Ng Kah Ting Goh Chok Tong Ong Teng Cheong Goh Choon Kang Othman bin Haron Eusofe Ow Chin Hock Wong Kwei Cheong Phua Bah Lee Yatiman Yusof Rajaratnam, S. Yeo Choo Kok Sia Khoon Seong Yeo Ning Hong Sidek bin Saniff Yeo Yoon Chia Tan Cheng Bok Zulkifli bin Mohammed Tan Soo Khoon Tan Tee Yong, Philip Tang Guan Seng Noes Tay Eng Soon Chiam See Tong Teh Cheang Wan Jeyaretnam, J.B. Teo Chong Tee Vasoo, S. Wang Kai Yuen Abstentions Wong Kan Seng Yeoh Ghim Seng 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. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

2.58 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* that the titles of Director, Deputy Director, and Assistant Director of Public Works be changed to Director-General, Deputy Director-General and Assistant Director-General of Public Works. *The motion, standing in the name of the Minister for National Development, reads as follows: That this Parliament, pursuant to section 3 of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Act (Chapter 53), resolves that the Schedule to the said Act be amended by the addition under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the following: Old Title or Name of Office New Title or Name of Office Director of Public Works Director-General of Public Works Deputy Director of Public Works Deputy Director-General of Public Works Assistant Director of Public Assistant Director-General Works of Public Works. The changes in the titles will free the title of Director for designating the various heads of functional divisions in PWD in conformity with the prevailing practice in the Civil Service. This will help the general public, grassroots organizations and other Government departments to identify the relevant office in PWD more easily and expeditiously. The changes in the titles will also bring the titles in PWD in line with that of counterpart officers in Asean countries and facilitate our interaction with them. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, pursuant to section 3 of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Act (Chapter 53), resolves that the Schedule to the said Act be amended by the addition under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the following: Old Title or Name of Office New Title or Name of Office Director of Public Works Director-General of Public Works Deputy Director of Public Deputy Director-General of Works Public Works Assistant Director of Public Assistant Director-General Works of Public Works.

3.00 pm

This motion is subject to signification of support by at least one Member.

Yes, I support it.

You are.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House regrets that the terms of reference announced for the Commission of Inquiry appointed under Gazette Notification No. 1298 and published on the 18th of April 1986 depart significantly in their purpose and object from the purpose and object of the commission that was proposed and discussed in this House on the 21st of March 1986. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not moved this motion to continue a private feud or dispute with the mover of the commission, as he suggested that it might be in a letter to me. I have asked now for 75 copies of that correspondence to be made available to Members of the House and they will be distributed, I hope, in half an hour's time. It is with the Librarian. She is making the copies now. So this is not a feud or a private dispute between the Prime Minister and me as he seemed to think that it might have been my motive in writing the letter to him. I am sorry that he is not here because I thought he would be here to answer this motion. Perhaps we might yet see him. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move this motion because it goes wider than the mere terms of reference appointed for the commission. It goes wider to bring in Ministerial responsibility and Cabinet responsibility to this House. Indeed, it goes wider to question and to examine the responsibility of each Member of this House. I have said that a parliamentary democracy, which we like to believe we are, rests on the very solid pillar of government accountability to Parliament and through Parliament to the people. That is the sine qua non of a parliamentary democracy, that Parliament makes the government accountable through Parliament to the people. So it behoves every Member who comes and makes a statement in this House to be honourable and to abide by any statement made by him in this House. And it applies more so a fortiori to Ministers of the government. It may be said that Backbenchers and, particularly Opposition Backbenchers, may be given a little bit of latitude. I see an hon. Member laughing. Perhaps he would like to read a little bit about parliamentary government. But Ministers of the government are a fortiori bound by this strict code. And we have seen how this operates in the United Kingdom, whose example we are trying to follow here. There, Ministers resign if they are shown to have made any misleading statement or not abided by anything that they have mentioned in the House of Commons. There is a full inquiry directed immediately. And the thing is taken up by the media and by the public, and they are in full chase against the Minister who comes and makes a statement in Parliament and then does not stand by it outside. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this country, the Government Members and the Ministers waste no time at all in trying to accuse me in particular, since I came into this House in 1981, of misleading, misrepresenting and the whole lot. And then they are in full cry, full pursuit, against me followed by their hounds, the press that they control. Sir, in a hunt, as you probably know, the hounds go first. But in Singapore the press hounds of the Government follow the Government. And so we on the Opposition are immediately the subject of this, as I said, the chase.

Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, I thought you are going to speak on the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry.

I am, Sir, but I am trying to enunciate the principle upon which this motion is based. It is, Mr Speaker, Sir, the principle upon which I say this responsibility arises, the departure.

What has that got to do with the terms of reference of the Commission?

I am going to show that there is a breach of the principle. It is a breach of that principle.

It is a strange way of doing things.

So that is what happens to us. But time and time again, we have seen Ministers of the Government making statements here and which they do not abide or keep and which are in some cases deliberately misleading. I mentioned the statement made by the Minister for Home Affairs in moving the Adoption Bill. It was a deliberate misleading of this House.

Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir.

What is your point of order?

My point of order is that the rule of relevance ought to be enforced in this debate on the motion. If he wants to bring up other matters, I am perfectly willing, ready and able to take him on on other matters.

That is why I am trying to direct him back to the terms of reference.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just referring to the instances. We have already had a motion. Does he want another motion? I will table another motion if he likes. But there is that instance. Then I referred to the instance of the statement made by the then Labour Minister in 1965 that they would set aside the money collected from employers for their staff which the Malaysian Government had introduced. And in 1965, the Minister said they would set aside the money for the workers, into a welfare fund. That statement was never honoured. The workers never saw that.

What has that got to do with your terms of reference, Mr Jeyaretnam?

I am saying that they make statements and then they do not honour them.

Will you get down to the terms of reference, please?

All right, Mr Speaker, Sir.

You are just going on and on to things which have nothing to do with the terms of reference.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just exemplifying the instances in which Government Ministers make misleading, misrepresenting, statements. And we recently had the Minister for Community Development who just spoke on the press Bill making a statement about a detailed analysis and he cannot produce it. The point that I am making is this, that Government Ministers particularly have a very strict responsibility to honour statements made in this House and not to mislead the Members of this House and the public. I am sorry to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Prime Minister has precisely done that. And I intend to take this House in detail through the debate in this House on the 21st of March 1986.

Order. The House has already debated the Commission's Report and I do not think the hon. Member should reopen the debate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not asking the House to look at the Commission's Report. I am asking, as this motion says in its terms, this House to regret that the terms depart from what was agreed in this House.

All right. You elaborate on those terms and the reasons why. Do carry on with these terms of reference.

Yes, I am coming to that.

But you are not. You are going back to the debates of two or three days ago.

No, Mr Speaker, Sir. Please, if you will bear with me, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will bear with me. Sir, Members are aware of what happened on the 21st of March this year when we were debating the estimates for the Office of the Prime Minister and I had tabled an amendment to the Supply vote. I had not raised this then but the Prime Minister came in and raised the question about a speech I had made in this House on the 10th of January 1986. And we went into it on the 19th of March 1986 and then it was not left to rest on the 19th of March. On the 21st of March, the Prime Minister reverted back to the debate that had taken place on the 19th of March. And it was on that day that the idea of an inquiry was first mooted and the terms were agreed, at least I thought they were agreed in this House. We were all awaiting the announcement of a Commission of Inquiry upon the terms that had been agreed before this House by the Prime Minister, terms that had been agreed and, I thought, accepted by him because, as I shall do so, Members will see from the Official Reports, he completely accepted my terms. He did not say he was going to reject any of those terms. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may refer the House now to column 898 of the Reports of the Debate in this House on the 21st March, 1986. Mr Speaker, Sir, you may recall that I had told the Prime Minister that if he was really earnest and anxious to vindicate the assertion that he was making - that the Subordinate Court judiciary and, indeed the whole judiciary, are under no fear of Executive displeasure, that they are completely immune from any Executive displeasure, perhaps the best thing for him to do would be to appoint a Committee of Parliament to inquire into the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo. And he accepted that. He said, "All right, we will have it." I mean, he did not use these words, but that is what he said. Then he said: 'I now say, "Yes, let us have this Parliamentary inquiry." And he says it is my proposal to look into the system. It was his proposal. I am now asking him [this is column 898] to draft the terms of reference. Let me have it. It shall be done.' There is an invitation to me to draft the terms of reference and he says "it shall be done." It is quite clear. So I said something,and he says, "Put it down." He wanted the terms of reference. Then I said: 'You mean you want me to draft it now, right immediately, Mr Prime Minister?' He said, "Say it." Then again he said: 'All I want is the subject matter of this Parliamentary committee of inquiry. What is the subject matter? Let us have it.' This is col. 899. Then I went on. I am not going to read the whole of it. At col. 900, I said: 'But I am more concerned, as I was last year, [it should really have been 10th January, not "last year", it is a mistake there] with preserving the independence and the impartiality of the District Judges. I certainly would commend to the Prime Minister that there should be a committee set up to look into the whole question of the independence of the District Judges.' That is what I was saying, "should be a committee set up to look into the whole question of the independence of the District Judges." Then the Prime Minister said: 'Do I understand that he wants the committee to look into the question of safeguarding the independence of the Subordinate Courts (the Judges)?' Then I responded: 'That is why I think the District Judges' position should be safeguarded.' Because I said they come under the Legal Service Commission. Then he said: 'He does not want the committee to inquire into the circumstances in which Mr Michael Khoo was transferred out and whether there was impropriety?' The Prime Minister was asking me, "Do you not want to inquire into Mr Michael's transfer?" And I said, "Yes, by all means." Not only just those words, but this is what I was saying in the next answer. Then the Prime Minister said, in col. 901: 'So I now have it clearly it is to inquire into the present system which does not safeguard the independence of the Subordinate Court Judges and Magistrates. Am I right?' And I said, "Yes." Then the Prime Minister said: 'Second, any impropriety in connection with the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo out of the position of Senior District Judge. Yes?' And I confirmed it by saying: "Inquire into the circumstances." Then the Prime Minister said: 'Impropriety, circumstances of any other subjects.' The Prime Minister then said, further down: 'Therefore, really under subhead (2), the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo out of this position of Senior District Judge to the Attorney-General's Chambers is a specific investigation into precedents or previous instances ...'. Then I responded: ' ... the Prime Minister wants me to suggest what should be the terms of reference for this committee. All right, I will tell you now.' Because he was pressing me for the terms of reference. And I said, "I will tell you now." Then I start, at col. 902: 'One, to look into the independence - this is as he said is not the legal form of words but just what they should look into and if you like, I will draft it in legal form and send it to you. To examine or investigate the independence - I do not like the word investigate - to examine the independence and impartiality of the District Judges in the Subordinate Courts.

Not Magistrates?' Then I said, "All right, we will include the Magistrates." Because the Prime Minister wanted to include the Magistrates as well, and I said, "Yes, good." Then I went on: 'And to see whether the present system provides adequate safeguards for their independence. And whether a better system should be now created to ensure that judicial officers in the Subordinate Courts are freed from any fear of Executive displeasure that would affect their promotions or career advancement. And to look into all the circumstances leading to the transfer of the then Senior District Judge in April 1985 to whatever post he was transferred to the AG's Chambers.' Then the Prime Minister brings in: 'I thought he mentioned specifically the non-promotion of this person.' Then I had to point out to him that I never suggested that he should have been promoted. Then the Prime Minister, at the bottom of col. 902 said: 'Would he like the investigation to be into the circumstances why he was transferred into a position or job less in prestige and status?' And I said: 'I thought I have already spelt it out.' So that is where it rested. I said, first of all, "to examine the independence of the Subordinate Court Judiciary, that is the Judges and the Magistrates, and to see whether the present system provided adequate safeguards for the independence and whether a better system should be now created to ensure that judicial officers in the Subordinate Courts are freed from any fear of Executive displeasure that would affect their promotions or career advancement." That is one. And the second one, "to look into all the circumstances leading to the transfer of the then Senior District Judge in April 1985 to whatever post he was transferred to in the AG's Chambers." So the Prime Minister says: 'Is he sure he has no other items that he wants included in the terms of reference? Because then I want to move to the next question of the committee of investigation ...' And I told him: 'I do not think there is anything else. I think it adequately covers it. I think the main part of it is the one which I first spelt out, the safeguarding of the independence of the District Judges and the Magisgrates. That is the main one.' Then the Prime Minister goes on, and he says: 'I look forward to receiving it [because I said I will send him the terms of reference] because it will not be I who will draft it. It will go to the draftsman who looks after these matters in the AG's Chambers. Can I now ask him how many members there should be on this parliamentary committee ...' So there we have it. The Prime Minister in the morning before the lunch adjournment agreeing, or seeming to agree, before this House on the two terms. I say, he clearly agreed, he accepted those two terms of reference. A lot of fuss was made about my having said "So be it" to the Prime Minister and the Government trying to pin me down to saying "So be it" meant I agreed. I say it does not. But here clearly the Prime Minister has accepted my terms of reference. Then we moved on, as I said, to the discussion as to who should go on to this Committee of Parliament, and then to somebody outside because the Prime Minister had suggested that perhaps we should have people from outside to sit on this Committee. And again he tried to press me to name the persons who should go on this Commission immediately, and I said I wanted time, and I begged for a little bit of time to try and consider the persons. So the matter rested. Then the House recessed for lunch adjournment. The Prime Minister came back that afternoon and he then told the House, to my utter surprise, which is perfectly all right, that he had changed his mind during the course of the debate. Of course he can, having first agreed to a Committee of Parliament and then to a Commission outside comprising persons outside of Parliament. He can again change his mind if he wants in thisHouse and inform the House. So that was what he did. He came back after lunch and took a complete somersault on the members who should be on the commission, and said he had got in touch with the Chief Justice. This is at col. 913. At col. 913 he said that he had at the lunch break got in touch with the Chief Justice and the Chief Justice had agreed to make a Judge available, and he proposed to appoint a High Court Judge to head the Commission. He said, at col. 914: 'I therefore propose to have this Commission of Inquiry of one Judge to inquire into all the statements that have been made in this House which are privileged, and to find the basis upon which they have been made, including the two terms of reference which he has suggested in this Chamber.' "Including the two terms of reference which he has suggested in this Chamber." You have there the Prime Minister's assurance, "I therefore propose to have this Commission of Inquiry". 'So, in fact, there will be three terms of reference - first, the basis [and then the two terms that he made] ... and to look specifically into the two items he has made.' Again, he says "to look specifically into the two items he has made." That is what the Prime Minister said at col. 914. And I responded. I did not, I repeat, I did not say, "I agree. I accept." I said, "It is your decision. So be it." I said it was not for me to recommend to the President to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. It is for the Prime Minister. If he wants to appoint a Judge, 'so be it,' and I would make my representations to the Judge or whoever is appointed. I said "I will, if invited, certainly make my representations to whoever is appointed." And I said then, at col. 915. 'All I wanted to point out is that now we have a departure from the proposals that were made this morning. We seem to have gone a long way from where we started.' So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I have made it clear to the House that when this debate finally ended on that day, on 21st March, this House was left to understand that there would be a Commission of Inquiry on the two terms that I had proposed and which had been accepted by the Prime Minister, and he wanted a third one but he says to inquire specifically into my terms. There can be nothing else and this is a statement made by the Prime Minister of the country, the leader of the Government, to Parliament - there shall be a Commission to inquire into these two terms. It is a very responsible statement and a statement that the country expects the Prime Minister to honour and to abide by it. Then it was the weekend (I think it was Friday, 21st March) and, as I told the Members some days ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister - I think it was by my letter of the 24th March - that I did not think a High Court Judge was the most suitable person to head the Commission of Inquiry and I told him why, because it was to inquire into the conductof the Chief Justice, and he replied saying no, he did not agree with me. He does not say in his letter, "You agreed to the High Court Judge to head the Commission." He does not say that quite candidly. He merely said, "You agreed that you had no fears about the independence or no qualms about the independence of the High Court Judiciary." So I had nothing more to say. The Prime Minister had decided in his judgment that the High Court Judge should be the best person. What could I do? 3.34 pm

Then, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it was announced on 16th April 1986 in the press the Judge who had been selected to head the inquiry - it was a one-man Commission - and also the terms of reference. This was gazetted under Gazette Notification 1298 and, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may read the terms of reference under which the Commissioner was appointed: '(a) to investigate the evidence upon which Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam based his allegation in Parliament on the 10th day of January 1986 that the executive arm of Government had on at least three occasions interfered with the administration of justice in the subordinate judiciary by transferring District Judges from the subordinate judiciary whenever decisions were given by them that displeased the executive and this interference had undermined the independence and impartiality of the subordinate judiciary.' When I saw that, this was all new to me. This found no mention in the terms of reference that were discussed in this House on the 21st March. In the first place, I do not think that I said that the Executive arm of the Government had interfered in the transfer of all these three officers before that. All I said was that they had raised eyebrows - the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo, and I said that was not the only one. There was disquiet and there were two other transfers. The second term of reference again: '(b) to investigate the evidence upon which Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, MP for Anson, based his allegation in Parliament on the 19th and 21st March 1986 that the transfer of Mr. Michael Khoo from his appointment as Senior District Judge to an appointment as Senior State Counsel and Deputy Public Prosecutor in the Attorney-General's Chambers was due to, or caused by, interference by the executive arm of Government in the subordinate judiciary.' Again, it is a complete departure. It is to investigate the evidence upon which I made it, whereas the terms of inquiry which were agreed upon in Parliament were "to inquire into all the circumstances of his transfer" which is something quite different. The Commissioner there is asked to look into all the circumstances of the transfer. The Commissioner is asked to dig up all the evidence and find out all the circumstances of the transfer. That is what Parliament was told the Commission would do: to inquire into all the circumstances of the transfer. But here, it is turned and stood on its head and the term is: The Commission will investigate what evidence Jeyaretnam had for making that allegation, not investigate the circumstances, you just leave that alone. Go and investigate Jeyaretnam's statements. And then: '(c) to decide if there was any truth in these allegations by Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam.' The Commissioner is asked to tell us, "Was he (Jeyaretnam) lying?" And then finally, and this is made conditional: '(d) if the Commissioner finds, on the evidence, that the transfers were due to or caused by interference by the executive arm of Government to receive proposals as to how the existing system and procedure as provided in Article 111 of the Constitution relating to the Legal Service Commission and its duties and functions can be improved.' It might be argued that this has some similarity to the first term of reference which was proposed by me and which was accepted by the Prime Minister. But even if it has some similarity, it is made subject to a condition. The Commission is not asked to embark on it unless it first comes to a finding on other terms of reference, and if it does not come to a certain finding on the other terms it can leave this term completely alone. So that goes overboard, after the Prime Minister told this House that he would appoint a Commission to look into the independence of the District Judges. So I was very saddened, Members of the House. May I also say, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that if the Prime Minister, honouring his statement in this House and abiding by his assurances given in this House, had appointed a Commission with those terms of reference which were accepted by him, then the whole question of section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act would never have arisen. It would never have arisen. The Commission would not have violated section 4 if it inquired into those terms of reference. That is an important point. Ths Commission could have carried out its task without violating in any way section 4 but, on these terms of reference, it was clearly in conflict with section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. I wonder whether the Prime Minister was advised about this. As I said the other day, I was very surprised that he should have asked the Attorney-General to draw up the terms of reference when he is the man whose conduct is to be inquired into by the Commission because he was one of the two who were responsible for the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo. But I would like to leave that. If they had stuck to these terms of reference, section 4 would never have arisen and the Commission could have done the work without any difficulty and this House could have received the Report it wanted about the independence of the Subordinate Court judiciary. But because these new terms of reference were substituted, the whole thing has been frustrated; frustrated because you immediately set the whole Commission on collision with Parliament. Of course, I had to point out to the Commissioner that he was sitting in contempt of Parliament and he could not plead a Presidential decree in defence to any charge by Parliament that he was in contempt of Parliament. So I was very saddened, Members of the House, and I wrote to the Prime Minister by my letter of 16th April 1986. I told him that I was surprised to read of the announcement that appeared in the papers. And I said I was surprised for two reasons. I said, "Firstly, I had expected that you would at least, even as a matter of courtesy (and this Government makes so much of courtesy campaigns) have sent the terms of reference to me for my comments before they were announced." Here was the Prime Minister, right in front of me, saying, "Give it to me now. Give it to me now." And I said I would draft it and send it to him. "No, dictate it. Say it now. I will take them down now." So he wanted me to give him the terms of reference. He wanted my agreement with the terms of reference. So I told him that I was surprised that he had not sent them to me for my comment. Then I explained what I have just said, about how in Parliament he had insisted that I should draft the terms. I pointed out to him that I had offered to send him the terms of reference and he had replied that he was going to ask the Attorney-General to draw up the terms of reference. I pointed that out to him. I went on to say: 'In the light of all this, as I said earlier, I would have expected you at least, as a matter of courtesy...', a courtesy due to a Member of this House, not just a member of the public. I am not saying that courtesy is not due to a member of the public but at least courtesy is due to a Member of the House, in the Opposition, who had asked for these terms of reference. So much for the Courtesy campaigns that are conducted by the Government. Then I said: 'My second reason for the surprise is that the terms of reference, as published in the Straits Times, have completely changed the character and purpose of the Commission which was discussed in Parliament on the 21st of March. The published terms depart dramatically from the terms that I put forward on the 21st of March. I thought the whole intention arose from your desire to ensure that the Subordinate Courts judiciary was not only independent of the executive but was manifestly seen to be. You have now, it would appear, turned the Commission into an investigation on me, not that I am afraid of any investigation. The whole thing is reminiscent, if I may say so, of the Ong Eng Guan inquiry. Is it not, Mr Prime Minister?' [I asked him]. That is it, Members of Parliament. What was agreed by the Prime Minister on the 21st March was a Commission of Inquiry into the independence of the Subordinate Court Judiciary because it is so vital to the country's stability. But what was announced was a Commission to investigate into Jeyaretnam, completely turning and standing on their heads the terms that were agreed upon. They were turned upside down, just as the trade unions were turned upside down and made to stand on their heads, as Hitler did, and as Singapore did soon after the PAP came to power. Then I said: 'The main purpose and object for the appointment of the committee, as discussed in Parliament, is completely lost sight of in the terms of reference published. Not only does it appear as the last of the terms of reference, the inquiry into the independence of the Subordinate Courts judiciary is made conditional upon the Commissioner finding whether there was any interference by the executive in the functioning of the Subordinate Courts judiciary.' Again, I go on to point out about the appointment of the person chosen as the Commissioner. I said: 'Finally about the appointment of the person chosen as the Commissioner. He himself was Senior District Judge and was elevated to the High Court Bench a factor which may become relevant when he comes to consider the second term of reference. In the light of that you may feel that some other Commissioner should be appointed.' Then I also pointed out: 'One other matter. You have appointed Mr Glenn Knight to lead the evidence. It cannot have escaped your notice that Mr Glenn Knight was the senior prosecuting counsel in the trials after which Mr Michael Khoo was transferred from the Subordinate Courts to the Attorney-General's Chambers. Is he not too near the bone?' I raised these what I thought were very valid questions and which I felt duty bound to raise as a Member of this House. And this is the reply I had from the Prime Minister dated 23rd April 1986. He said in this letter, second paragraph: 'This is no private or personal dispute.' I mentioned that earlier and I am not raising this as a private or personal dispute. 'You made serious allegations in Parliament on two occasions, in January and March 1986, that there was executive interference with the Subordinate Court judiciary.' I have waited. I have asked time and time again for the specific passages to be drawn to my attention where I had made these allegations in these terms. And then: 'The Terms of Reference enable the Commission to investigate the truth of these allegations.' That is not what was agreed in Parliament. We did not agree in Parliament that a Commission of Inquiry should be appointed to examine the evidence and the basis upon which I made the statements? That is not what we agreed in Parliament. We agreed in Parliament that the Commission would inquire into the independence of the Subordinate Court judiciary. And then he goes on: 'In Parliament in March you accepted the independence and impartiality of the High Court Judges. That Mr Justice Sinnathuray was a Senior District Judge before he was elevated to the High Court Bench, does not disqualify him from determining the truth of your allegations.' It may not have disqualified him. But is it prudent? Is it right that he should be inquiring into it? And then again: 'The fact that Mr Glenn Knight had conducted a prosecution against you is irrelevant. It is the Commissioner, not Mr Knight, who will make the findings.' Then, finally, he enters a caveat because I had told him that I wished to publish both the letters, my letter to him and his reply, by releasing them to the press. So he enters a caveat. He says: 'Your letter is not covered by Parliamentary Privilege. Parts of your letter amount to contempt.' So that was intended as a warning or as a message to our press. 'We are no longer debating the appointment of a Commission in Parliament. A Commission has already been appointed and gazetted.' Well, I do not agree that anything I said amounted to contempt of the Commissioner or the Commission under the Inquiry Commissions Act. The result was when I sent both these letters to the press, none of the two letters saw the light of day. I did not really expect our press, this responsible press, the responsible press of which the Government is so proud, to publish those letters. And yet those are vital questions, vital issues raised by a Member of Parliament about the Government's conduct and motive. I know the press, "Oh, please don't ask us to publish all this. We can't do that. How can we do this, against the Government?" So those two letters did not see the light of day. There was, as I said three or four days ago, a letter written by a pensioner to the Straits Times. I see that I have not been challenged on that letter. So I take it that the Straits Times does have that letter and it is not denying it. That letter again expressed the desirability or the suitability of appointing Mr Glenn Knight as counsel to the Commission. Did that letter see the light of day, coming from a member of the public to our responsible press? And he gave reason why he thought Mr Glenn Knight should not be the counsel because, he said, he was present at an interview and Glenn Knight had said something which showed that he was biased against Mr Michael Khoo. So the public did not know anything about all this because our responsible press thought it their duty to the Government to suppress any disquiet in the public mind about the Commission or its counsel. 3.56 pm

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

On a point of order?

Yes. Please do not get excited. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have already spent four days in Parliament and I think that we should extend today's sitting to finish all the business in the Order Paper. Sir, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the item under discussion and the remaining item on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion and the remaining item on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1.

Debate resumed.

Mr Jeyaretnam, you may continue.

I hope I am going to be given two minutes for loss of time.

One minute.

Your watch must be a very fast watch!

May I assure the Leader that I am quite happy to stay here until midnight. I have got enough stamina - I am sure the people of Singapore know - to sit out the whole night as well. So that letter did not see the light of day. And I am not going to repeat, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all that I have said earlier. But I trust the Members of the House will see that it is as a result of what the Prime Minister did that the whole Commission went off the rails, went off the track. Section 4 came into play. There was a collision between Parliament and the Executive, in the appointment of the Commission. Parliamentary historians will tell you, if you read books on Parliament history, that in England Parliament is very zealous of its rights and will not allow anybody outside, not even the sovereign, to encroach on Parliamentary rights. That is all that I was asserting before the Commissioner, that it is the prerogative of Parliament and the rights belong to the House. But all this came about simply because the Prime Minister did not keep his words uttered in this House. I say that quite seriously because the Prime Minister went back, as he went back twice on the 21st March in this House. Well, he can go back, as I said, in this House, withdraw something that he said and then come back and say, "I am sorry, I am going to withdraw. I am going to put something else." That is all right for this House. But once it is accepted, then you should stand by it. If he was going to completely alter the terms of reference, then he should have convened Parliament again. That is what any Minister, let alone the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister, let me tell you, as you already know, is a lawyer and he knows his Constitutional history. And he is a product of Cambridge, not a product of the Singapore University, but a product of Cambridge where they investigate and encourage debate, questions, and he knows what the privileges of Parliament are. He knows that if he is going to depart from something that he had told the House, then it was his bounden duty, I say it was his bounden duty to have come back to this House and said, "Well, I have thought about the terms. I am not prepared to accept those terms, Parliament. I think I will now appoint a Commission with these new terms of reference." 4.01 pm

Order. Your one hour is up. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the motion and urge the House to reject the motion. Sir, first, some preliminaries arising out of what the Member has said. The first point I would like to make is to debunk, as I did on 29th July, his attempt to wriggle out which he tried to do again here. When he said in the course of his speech that he never really made any allegations that any of the transfers were the result of Executive interference - that all that he had said was that there were these transfers and there was public disquiet, and all that he had said was to raise this general question of public disquiet - this must be debunked because he keeps repeating his attempt to wriggle out. Therefore, I will quote, as I did on the second day of our debate, Hansard of 10th January 1986, cols. 711 [Vol. 46 No. 7]. This is what he said: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry to have to say this, that was not the first time.'

That a transfer was made, yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has had one full hour. Presumably, he will use another full hour which he is entitled to. I did not interrupt but once on a point of order. He talks about courtesy. May he practise what he preaches ---

Learning it from the Prime Minister and you.

--- and not to make these rude interruptions after he has had one full hour.

All right. I will accept that.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is what he said on 10th January in cols. 711-2: 'I am sorry to have to say this, that was not the first time. There were at least two other instances, and I know this personally. There was one case where, after a decision was given, the man was transferred. That was about four or five years ago, and there was one case much earlier than that. These decisions were not acceptable. So what independence of the Subordinate Judiciary is there if the public see these things happening?' Further down: 'The public see that the District Judges are not immune and that they may suffer the displeasure of the Executive.' What clear statement, what clearer allegation of Executive interference in the transfer of Judges. Then with regard to Mr Michael Khoo, 19th March, col. 696 [Vol. 47, No 10]: 'And the other thing I said ...'.

Col. 696. I am sorry.

Not only should he not interrupt, I think he should pay attention.

I am trying to follow you.

'And the other thing I said [according to him on 19th March, col. 696] was we were acquitted on three of those charges by the Senior District Judge [and these are the important words] and after he had written his judgment, because an appeal was filed by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal, he was transferred.' Again, a specific allegation that the reason for his transfer was because an appeal had been filed. So no attempts to wriggle out. These were specific allegations. Other preliminary questions, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. He started off by laying a very interesting proposition that Ministers are accountable - which we accept, and I have already said that the Government stands by everything it says.

Has it?

But he wants a different standard for Opposition Members because he said, for Backbenchers, particularly for Opposition Backbenchers, there should be a different latitude. He is laying the groundwork for bringing more Lim Poh Huat allegations into this House. So much for preliminaries. Now, we go to the substance of his motion. Let us look at the substance of his motion. What he says is "that the terms of reference ... for the Commission of Inquiry ... depart significantly in their purpose and object from the purpose and object of the commission that was proposed." So the critical question is: what was the purpose and object of the Commission of Inquiry? I do not intend to speak at length, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because this motion is really irrelevant, it is a farce and it is hypocritical. It is hypocritical because the position taken by the Member for Anson at the closing session of the Commission of Inquiry which I demonstrated, and which we saw on the tapes the other day, was that he claimed absolute privilege, that he was prevented even voluntarily from going into ---

Absolute prohibition.

Absolute prohibition. From going into the witness box, however anxious he was, however eager he was, to voluntarily - mind you, not being forced, but voluntarily - go into the witness box; there was this rule of absolute parliamentary privilege which absolutely prohibited him. So I say it is sheer hypocrisy to come to this House to cry like a spoilt child about the terms of reference when whatever the terms of reference, whatever conditions, whatever requests are met, his position was that he is absolutely prohibited by an absolute parliamentary privilege. My second point is, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that the terms of reference, in fact, arose and are based on what the Member for Anson said in this House on the 21st of March when there was a discussion on the Commission of Inquiry. The Member went through the debates but conveniently glossed over the fact that when the Prime Minister repeatedly asked him to draft the terms, he pleaded that he was not capable, not competent, to draft the terms on the spot. Hansard, 21st March, col. 899 [Vol. 47, No. 12]: ' Mr Jeyaretnam: I do not think we should be too hasty about it. I will send it to you. ... You know, terms of reference have to be carefully drafted out. You do not expect me, this very second, to scribble out something and hand it to you.' He was not competent. He was not capable of drafting it then and there. So what the Prime Minister did was to get what were the points he wanted and so the debate went on. How did it end up? It ended up this way. Col. 914, and this is towards the end of the whole debate, the two days' debate, and this is what the Prime Minister said: 'I therefore propose to have this Commission of Inquiry of one Judge [and I stress this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir] to inquire into all the statements that have been made in this House which are privileged, and to find the basis upon which they have been made, including the two terms of reference which he has suggested in this Chamber. So, in fact, there will be three terms of reference - first, 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, ...' In other words, towards the close of the debate, after all the discussions on the various aspects of the proposed Commission, the Prime Minister summed it up, and his summing up made it very clear that the proposed Commission of Inquiry would definitely look into the specific allegations of interference by the Executive alleged by the Member for Anson. Let us look at it again, since the Member for Anson is shaking his head: ' ... 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, ...'. Now, what did the Member for Anson say? Did he protest that the Commission should not look into these allegations? Did he object to these terms as summarized by the Prime Minister? No. He has attempted to place a special meaning on the words "so be it". Let me repeat: 'Now he proposes that a High Court Judge be appointed. So be it.' He maintains that does not mean agreement. If that does not mean agreement, what does? And he says: 'So it is for the Prime Minister, and if he thinks that is what it should be, well, fine.' He had an opportunity to object. He can say, "That's not fine. I don't agree with it." He could say, "Mr Prime Minister, I don't agree with it. If that is the summary of the terms, I will not appear before the Commission." But he said, "Fine, so be it. I will, if invited, certainly make my representations to whoever is appointed." Famous last words of a man who cannot be believed. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, he refers to this letter which he wrote to the Prime Minister on 16th April, really like a spoilt child, complaining about the terms of reference. I might add, in parenthesis, when that debate ended, the Prime Minister made it clear after having noted these points that the actual drafting of the terms would be left to the legal experts in the Attorney-General's Chambers. That was made very clear. In col. 903, the Prime Minister made it clear that it will not be he who will draft it. It will go to the draftsman who looks after these matters in the Attorney-General's Chambers. For obvious reasons. The terms for the appointment of a Commission have to be drafted in order for the instruments to be executed by the President. I would like Members to focus their attention on the letter which the Member has just circulated. The second paragraph, what does it boil down to? What it really boils down to is that the Member does not want and did not want the Commission to look into the specific allegations. Look at what he says. He says (and he reminds the Prime Minister) he suggested two things: (a) that the Commission look into the general question of the independence and impartiality of the Subordinate Courts, see whether a better system can be constructed; (b) to look into the circumstances of Mr Michael Khoo's transfer. Then he expresses astonishment, surprise, over the terms which include reference to the specific allegations. He did not want the specific allegations to be included. The question is, why? Now we know, because he could not defend himself; he could not justify his allegations. No wonder then that the Prime Minister replied to him, as follows: 'You made serious allegations in Parliament on two occasions, in January and March 1986, that there was executive interference with the Subordinate Court judiciary. The Terms of Reference enable the Commission to investigate the truth of these allegations. It is strange that you do not consider these allegations important enough to include them in your proposed terms of reference.' Indeed strange that he did not want these specific allegations to be included. Because he knew, and it has now been established, that he was unable to back his allegations. But we are still giving him an opportunity, as was indicated two days ago. He would still have an opportunity, if he claims he was shut out, to prove his allegations, bring his witnesses, his evidence, before the Committee of Pri- vileges, as mentioned by the Leader of the House. The third point, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. He makes much ado of the fact that he wanted the Commission to look into this whole question of improving the Subordinate Court Judiciary. The term of reference is in the Commission's terms, the fourth term. But he complains that the fourth term reads, as follows: 'if the Commissioner finds, on the evidence, that the transfers were due to or caused by interference by the executive arm of Government to receive proposals as to how the existing system and procedure ... can be improved.' Why complain? Because this inquiry into whether we can improve the system must surely depend on whether his allegations are founded. Let me give an example. If the Member for Anson happened to see a crack in this building, suddenly rises and says, "Mr Speaker, Sir, this building is unsafe. It has been built in a negligent manner. We should bring down this whole building and let us put up a new, improved, House of Parliament." Well, sure. But before we look into the question whether we should accept his proposal to build, bring down, demolish the House and build a new House of Parliament, we must inquire whether the premise on which he bases his conclusion is established. We must first find out: is it true that the building is unsafe? Is it true that it has been built negligently? This is commonsense. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the terms of reference, in fact, are based on what the Member for Anson wanted and what the Member for Anson said in Parliament. He alleged Executive interference, the Commission has to look into Executive interference. He alleged impropriety in the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo; the terms of reference authorized the Commission to look into them. Building a better system and his allegation that the system should be improved is based on his scurrilous allegation of Executive interference: yes, the Commission looks into it if his allegations are proved. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think I need to add anything else. I will just end up by repeating that this motion is farcical, irrelevant and an exercise in hypocrisy. The real issue before the House is not the terms of reference. The real issue before the House is an issue which I have mentioned the other day - attempts to bring down into ruin, bring into total disrepute and damnation, key pillars of our society. And when such allegations that he has made about the Judiciary are made in this House or elsewhere, the accuser must be able to back up his allegations. Opportunity was given, did not take up. Morning - hithering, dithering, waiver of privilege, "I might waive, I might not" if you produce his witnesses. Afternoon - 180-degree turn: "Sorry, I want to go in voluntarily, but there is a rule of law which forbids me to do it." Pitiful, pathetic display. But the Government has said it has got nothing to hide. The Government wants to give him yet another opportunity and he has been told that he will have an opportunity to prove all these allegations because, in the ultimate analysis, we cannot let persons trying to bring down the whole edifice of our society in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I urge Members to vote against this motion. 4.25 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have got a full hour. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I say that I am simply astounded, astounded at the reply made by the Minister to this motion. I, of course, realize that the Minister was at one time a Professor of Law at our University. That is why I am astounded because he fails to show any grasp - I am sorry to have to say this - he fails to show any grasp of the motion. All he can do is to repeat that I had the opportunity before the Commissioner and I did not take it. But we are not talking about that any more. The Speaker told me, "Mr Jeyaretnam, we are not discussing the Report. We have already finished with it." But I was not talking on that. I was trying to outline the principle. But the Minister of the Government comes up, and what does he say in reply to this motion? He rehashes, plays his record that he played in the last debate, edits it a bit, perhaps SBC helped to edit it. And he comes back and says, "Come along, here is my new edited version now of what I said the last time." Because that is what it all amounted to. He does not realize that the motion is not dealing any more with the allegations or what took place before the Commissioner. The motion is dealing with the question, simply, whether the Prime Minister of the Government in which he serves, and the Prime Minister whom he serves, has departed from the assurance given to this House. I am sorry to have to say this. The Minister might think that I am insulting him all the time, but I wish the Prime Minister were here. Because I am sure he would have shown a better grasp of the motion. He would have responded to the motion, instead of trying to circle round it all the time which is what the Minister for Home Affairs and the Second Minister for Law has done. It is really a matter for regret and I, again, would say that I think the Prime Minister is failing in his duty to this House. He is failing in his duty to the House to come to this House to answer the motion. That is showing disrespect to the House. If somebody in the United Kingdom Parliament had tabled a motion which criticized the conduct of the British Prime Minister, and particularly over an assurance she had given in Parliament and which the Member said she had not kept, do you think she could have kept away from Parliament? It is unthinkable. She would have been there to answer the criticism. She would have been there to face Parliament and to stand by whatever act she did, or conduct she did. Why is the Prime Minister not here? That is lamentable. That shows that the Prime Minister is unable to answer the motion. I am sorry, but that is the inescapable conclusion that I can draw and which the members of the public in Singapore will have to draw. Here is a motion from an Opposition Member saying that the Prime Minister has departed from his assurance in Parliament and the man, the central man in this motion, does not show up. It does not say very much for the Prime Minister, I am afraid. It does not say very much for Cabinet responsibility and Ministerial responsibility in Singapore. And this is a prime example, Members of the House. I know you are all Members of the Government Party. But you have got to take cognizance of this one day, whether you proclaim it outside or not is another matter. But you have got to take cognizance of this because Cabinet government, Cabinet responsibility, if it means anything, means this: that Ministers will appear in Parliament and take the brunt of any attack on the Government, and particularly on them. Mrs Thatcher, the British Prime Minister, is now being hauled over the coals. I do not know whether you have seen this but if you have been listening to the BBC - they have a programme every week "People and Politics" - you would have heard that she is being hauled over the coals and she will be hauled over the coals, when Parliament resumes in October after the Summer recess over the Civil Service leak. I do not want to go into too many details but there was this Westland deal and there was a purported leak from the Civil Service of a Memorandum to the Defence Minister Haseltyne. Then there was an All-Parliamentary Committee which inquired into the conduct of the Civil Service. There, Members, you see how Parliament controls the Government machinery, which is what I have been pleading for in this House so that we in Singapore may also show ourselves to be responsible. So there was a Parliamentary All-Party Committee. And what did this All-Party Committee find? That a responsible Permanent Secretary, the Head of the Civil Service, had gone wrong. And they said, "Who is responsible? The Prime Minister." And so they are in full cry after her, not just Members of Parliament, the press is in full cry. And do you think she will stay away? If she stays away, she will have to resign. That is all the stuff of Parliamentary democracy, Members of Parliament. But we merely put up with a show, a pretence, of Parliamentary democracy. I want the real genuine Parliamentary democracy in Singapore. That is all I want. I do not want anything else. I do not want subversion, terrorism, communism or whatever have you. I want genuine Parliamentary democracy to function so that our people can ---

Mr Jeyaretnam, can you confine yourself to the terms of reference? This is not a debate on Parliamentary democracy.

All right, Sir. The absence of the Prime Minister shows that he cannot reply to this. So is it any wonder that his Minister cannot reply to the motion? Is it any wonder? May I, begging your pardon, Sir, hope that the Prime Minister is not indisposed. I wish him well and I hope it is not because of any indisposition that he has not turned up in this House. May I take the last part of the Minister's reply. He says this whole thing is a hypocrisy. He says before we look into the independence of the District Judges and Magistrates, before we try and improve the system or whether we need to improve the system, we must first inquire into the allegations, and he gave the example of the crack. I agree that if there is a crack you must first investigate whether there is a crack and what has caused the crack and you do not pull down the whole thing. I agree entirely, yes. But what the Minister forgets is what the Prime Minister agreed in this House. It was open to the Prime Minister on the 21st March to say to me, "Well, I am not going to inquire into the independence of the Subordinate Court Judiciary. I am not going to inquire into all the circumstances surrounding Michael Khoo's transfer until I am satisfied on your allegations." Then I could have responded. But that is not what he said. He did not say, "I am not going to embark on an investigation into the independence of the Subordinate Judiciary until Mr Jeyaretnam's allegations have been proved." You see the whole world of difference. The Prime Minister was prepared, regardless of whether my allegations were true or not - and this is why I said I thought he gave the impression that he was very earnest and sincere about the whole thing - that he was prepared, regardless of whether my allegations were true or not, to allow a Commission to look into it. And the Minister comes here and now says, "Why should we look into it? Should we not first inquire into the allegations made by the Member?" But that is not what the Prime Minister said. This is why I say the Minister for Home Affairs fails abysmally to grasp what is involved in the motion. The motion before the House is: 'That this House regrets that the terms of reference announced for the Commission of Inquiry appointed under Gazette Notification No. 1298 and published on the 18th of April 1986 depart significantly in their purpose and object from the purpose and object of the commission that was proposed and discussed in this House on the 21st of March 1986.' Should we not, Members of the House, determine what was the purpose and object of the Commission that was agreed in this House on the 21st of March? I have taken you, Members, through the Report of the debate in this House on the 21st of March. What was the purpose? What was the object? It is there. Do I need to take you through again? First, the purpose was to examine the independence of the Subordinate Judiciary and to see whether the system needs any improvement. That is the first purpose or object. The Prime Minister did not say in this House, "The first object will be to inquire into your allegations, Jeyaretnam. And after we have dealt with you, then we will embark on this." He did not say it like that. And he accepted that the second object would be to inquire into all the circumstances of Mr Michael Khoo's transfer. "To inquire into all the circumstances", Members of the House, ie, to examine everything connected with the transfer. Why was the man transferred? Who started it? What were the reasons and was this a transfer really, or was it a demotion? So to examine the whole transaction (for want of a better word). That was the purpose and object, and I for one, Members of the House, went away feeling very glad that the Prime Minister had agreed to this. I thought perhaps I had done him an injustice in thinking that he was not interested in all this; he had shown himself not to be really interested. So that was the purpose and object. To demonstrate to the people of Singapore, because it is so vital a subject, that the Judiciary in the Subordinate Courts was not only independent but was manifestly seen to be independent, which is what I said. It is important. Just as the maxim in law is that Justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done. The public must see Justice, must see it manifestly being done. So that was the object and the purpose. And of course the Prime Minister, when he came back, said, "I want also another term of reference, and that is, to inquire into the basis of all allegations." He could have had that if he had first carried out the two terms of reference and found that there was nothing wrong about the whole thing; if they had examined all the circumstances and had come up with a clean slate. Then he could have said, "Go on, after that, to inquire into why Jeyaretnam came to make these allegations when you find that there was nothing wrong about the whole thing." That is perfectly all right. I can see the reason, and I can see such a course of action or conduct. He could have proposed that to me here, "Do you agree that if they come up with a clean slate, you will subject yourself to an inquiry on this as to why you came up to this House and made all these statements?" But what did we find when the terms of reference were announced? A complete departure. The object of trying to show the public that the Subordinate Judiciary was not only independent but is manifestly seen by them to be independent was lost sight of, as I said. Because that is the whole object and purpose, to show the integrity of the judicial system in Singapore which everybody on both sides of the House agree is essential and vital. So that was the object and purpose. But what do the terms of reference announced require the Commission? I do not want to read them again. That object and purpose is lost sight of, and we have a new object and purpose. Can you not see it, Members? The new object and purpose is no longer whether the Judiciary is seen to be manifestly independent of the Executive. The new object is an inquiry on Jeyaretnam, "What is the evidence upon which he came to Parliament? That is what we want to know." The independence of the Judiciary is pushed aside. "Let that wait. We want, first of all, an investigation into Jeyaretnam." Is that not a departure, Members? I am afraid the Minister completely fails to grasp the motion. And it is lamentable because, as I said, the Minister is also a lawyer. So what has the Minister got to say in reply? He tries again his old tactics - Jeyaretnam is trying to wriggle out. Wriggle out? My foot. May we look at the 10th January Report again, cols. 711-712 that he read. He said I was alleging that the two transfers were caused by Executive interference and I am saying I never said it. Let us look at it. I was talking about the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo and I said, you know that he was transferred after the case was heard and he had acquitted us. Then I said, "I am sorry to have to say this, that was not the first time." First time, what? - that two members of the Subordinate Court Judiciary were transferred after they had acquitted accused persons. That is all I am saying - a fact.

Would the Member give me the Floor to clarify?

Are you giving way?

Because he is not quoting correctly.

Quoting what correctly?

Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Quoting what correctly?

You are not quoting the Hansard correctly.

All right, tell me which part I am not quoting correctly.

This is what he said, and he was paraphrasing it. This is what it actually reads: 'There were at least two other instances, and I know this personally.'

I am going to do that.

Let me read it because ---

I will read it.

'These decisions were not acceptable.'

Yes. I am not trying to hide it, Mr Minister, please. Look at that again: 'That, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry to have to say this, that was not the first time. There were at least two other instances, and I know this personally.' Now you know why I know it personally because I appeared on behalf of the two accused persons. So I am talking from personal knowledge. There was one case where, after the decision was given, the man was transferred. That was about four or five years ago. And there was one case much earlier than that. These decisions were not acceptable. Yes, I repeat, they were not acceptable. And from there, the Minister tries to construe that there was Executive interference. I am merely saying that these persons were transferred and there was public disquiet, just as there was public disquiet ---

Can he explain what is meant by "These decisions were not acceptable"?

Not acceptable to the Executive.

Exactly.

Yes, thank you. Not acceptable to the Executive. And then these persons were transferred.

Does that not mean that the Executive interfered in their transfer?

I am saying that these persons were transferred and there was public disquiet. An hon. Member: Don't wriggle out.

Please. And there were these two instances before Mr Michael Khoo, and they need an explanation. The public need an explanation from the Executive about these transfers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, would he explain whether this is not a specific allegation of Executive interference, "These decisions were not acceptable."? Is he now at this late hour telling us that he wants to withdraw these allegations, unreservedly?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these allegations are before the Committee of Privileges.

Is he trying to wriggle out?

Please, let us not waste time, Mr Minister, because I have only got one hour. I know what the object is. May I carry on? All I am saying is there were two other instances. And I still repeat that these decisions were not acceptable to the Executive, and I instanced that in the case of Mr Jeffrey Chan, the statement made by the Ministry of Communications that same evening saying, "Forget about that judgment. We are going to carry on." So clearly it was not acceptable to the Executive.

Is he saying that Mr Jeffrey Chan was transferred because Mr Jeffrey Chan's decision was also not acceptable?

I have just said it. His decision acquitting the man was not acceptable. The Ministry of Communications that evening said, "We don't accept it."

Was he transferred because the decision was not acceptable? Is he alleging now?

I have said, Mr Minister, for the last time that there was public disquiet about all these things and I said the Government had to explain, just as I said about Michael Khoo. If you cannot understand plain English, I am sorry. And then he comes to col. 696, on 19th March.

Can you please read on with your quotation?

Can you finish your quotation?

He reads from col. 696 on the 19th March, and I was going to answer this because he clasps on to a phrase ---

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I think he should finish reading that quotation.

If you want to read them, Leader, you read them. Take it home and read them.

I will read them now.

No. I am not giving way.

Are you afraid to let the House read?

I am not giving way.

Order. Please resume your seat. That is not a point of order.

You take it home and read them, just as I was told, "Look at the tape at your house." I asked for the whole tape here.

Why don't you just read a few lines here?

No, you read them at home.

You are afraid of the truth.

You have got nothing else to read, read that again.

You are afraid of the truth.

He fastens on to a phrase "because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor against the acquittal" that I am saying that he was transferred because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor. I am sorry to say it is a complete misunderstanding, an inability to understand the English language there. I am saying that he had written his judgment because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor. He was transferred after he had written his judgment, and I am trying to explain that he had to write his judgment because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor against the acquittal. Because normally, Members, the District Judges do not write their judgments unless there is an appeal. That is all to it. But he tries to put some other interpretation. The Minister must know that District Judges do not write their judgments unless there is an appeal. Does he not know? Are you saying they all write their judgments? All I was trying to say there is that after he had written his judgment, because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor against the acquittal, ie, after he had written his judgment, he was transferred. "Because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor against the acquittal" is in parenthesis and it explains why he had to write his judgment. That is all. If you cannot understand it, I cannot help you, Mr Minister. Then he says, "He tries to wriggle out as we saw on the tape that day." Well, what did we see of the tapes? Just what pleased you. You cut it short. I asked for the whole of the tape, and he said, "Well, we will give it to you at home. You go and watch it." You bring that here. And he says, "In the afternoon...", you see, he goes back to the Commission, "In the afternoon he made a 180-degree turn ." It has nothing to do with this motion. And he says, "Whatever the terms we might have published, whatever the terms on which we might have set up this Commission, his position was that he was absolutely prohibited." The Minister forgets again or he is unable. This is all the conclusion that I can make, Mr Minister, that you are simply unable to understand or comprehend. I am sorry, and I will repeat it, outside if you like, that you are unable to understand section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. And I will defend it, before your University students. Would he like it?

You can't stand by your own words, can you?

He says, "Whatever the terms,his position..." - I have offered him a challenge. If he likes, we can have a University debate.

Why are you afraid to read your own words?

You want to join in, do you? Come along! Come along, before the University students. "Whatever the terms, his position ..." [Interruption] The Leader wants to keep on nagging. We invite Members of the Government to come and debate with us in public, and they turn away, shy away. Here, because there are 75 of them together, they find strength. I must not digress. He says, "Whatever the terms his position was that he was absolutely prohibited." I have just tried to explain that if the Prime Minister had stuck to the two terms of reference, which were agreed in this House, which he accepted, I could not have raised privilege at all. Members of the House, I hope you will credit me with a little knowledge of the Act. An hon. Member: A little knowledge is dangerous thing.

If the Prime Minister had just stuck to those two terms, I could not have raised privilege. If I had, I would have been laughed out of court. I take my profession very seriously, and the last thing I want is to be laughed out of court. So there it is. The Minister cannot say, "Whatever the terms, Jeyaretnam would have raised this privilege question." It is nonsensical because it fails to understand section 4 of the Act. Because those two terms of reference do not raise my statements in the House. They are an examination into something quite external. And how could I raise section 4? Nothing to do with section 4, nothing to do with parliamentary proceedings. So I could not have raised it. I hope the Minister will clear his mind of this misconception under which he is labouring - that I could have raised parliamentary privilege whatever the terms of reference were. I simply could not have raised privilege on those two terms.

Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, could you resume your seat, please? Mr Jeyaretnam resumed his seat.

I suspend the Sitting now and will take the Chair again at 5.30 pm. Order. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 pm until 5.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 5.30 pm

Debated resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether it is permitted for me to ask for my last one or two sentences to be read back. I have lost the thread of what I was trying to say then. Is it permissible, I am asking you, Mr Deputy Speaker?

I do not think it is possible.

It is not possible. All right, then. It will come back. Do not worry. What I was trying to say is that the Minister failed to grasp that I could not have raised privilege at all, not that I raised it and avoided giving evidence before the Commissioner on account of that privilege. I never raised it and avoided giving evidence. But the Minister fails to grasp that if the terms of reference had been as agreed, all this would never have arisen. I am surprised that the Minister should pick on this. He says, "The Member pleaded in this House that he could not draft the Commission's terms of reference." Nothing is further from the truth, Members of the House. Nothing is further from the truth. All I told the Prime Minister simply was, "Why did we have to go through this like a bullet train? I will draft the terms, send them to you and then you can consider them." But no, he wanted them and I suppose he wanted to settle them. That is the important thing which the Minister does not grasp, that the Prime Minister wanted to settle the terms in this House. That is a very significant point, Members, that the Prime Minister did not want to wait till after the sitting was over for me to suggest the terms and for the terms to be settled. He wanted the terms to be settled. He says, "Don't worry about the legal wording, the draftsmanship. Just tell me what is it you want and we will settle it once and for all in this House." That's why I said I thought the Prime Minister was being deadly serious and earnest. So, because he was insistent, I then told him what the terms should be. They are in there, in cols. 901-2, I think. I read them out, all spelt out, not in legal language but spelt out and which the Prime Minister accepted as being clear enough to him. And now the Minister comes here to this House in this debate and says, "Member pleaded he could not draft." What a dis- tortion, what a distortion of what actually took place. And he has got the whole thing before him. I just read it out. And then he comes to col. 914 and he says, "Whatever might have been said in the morning, you can forget about it because in the afternoon the Prime Minister was proposing something else." Let us examine what the Prime Minister proposed in the afternoon. Col. 914 which is what the Minister read: 'I therefore propose to have this Commission of Inquiry of one Judge to inquire into all the statements that have been made in this House which are privileged, and to find the basis upon which they have been made, including the two terms of reference which he has suggested in this Chamber.' So maybe he was saying, "I will have your two terms of reference but I also want to add another term to inquire into your statements." As I said, "That's perfectly all right. First of all, have those two terms." And if you find that there is nothing wrong about them, then you can start inquiring into the third term. So there is nothing wrong. But that is what the Prime Minister said: 'including the two terms of reference which I had suggested in this Chamber. So, in fact, there will be three terms of reference, - first, 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 took it to mean to look into the two terms which he has asked. Now, of course, I see we are going to have a debate on "items". But I thought that was what the Prime Minister was saying, "to look specifically into the two [terms] ... I am glad that he has accepted ... that he does not impugn that the High Court Judge is free [it should have been "is not free"] from any executive pressure." Anyway, that is the thing. So there you have it again. In the afternoon, the Prime Minister comes back. He does not say, "I don't want your two terms of reference which you suggested in the morning. Forget about them. Just leave them aside. Push them aside. I will have new terms and these are my new terms." He does not say that, and he is a lawyer. He says, "Yes, I am going to appoint a Judge now and he will look into your two terms, and he will also look into the basis of all your statements." That is what the Prime Minister said, the Commission will inquire into the two terms that he had accepted in the morning. I cannot put any other interpretation to that statement made in the afternoon. But the Minister would have us believe that the Prime Minister was saying, "Forget all about your terms. I will have my own new terms." Because if that was what he was saying, he did not make it clear enough. And he should have made it clear. This is why I say - I am sorry to have to repeat this - I wish the Prime Minister were here to answer to all this because he is the man who spoke these words. And it is for him to answer why he departed from these words that he spoke. So there was not anything in the afternoon which suggested that the Prime Minister was telling the House that he rejected my two terms of reference. Nothing of that sort, Members of the House. Then the Minister again, which he had tried earlier, talked about my wriggling out because of my agreeing to the High Court Judge. Well, I do not want to go back all over it again. I made it clear, "If you want to appoint a High Court Judge, well, go ahead. It's your province. So be it." That, the Minister and the Prime Minister perhaps want to construe as, "Yes, I agree with you. I think a High Court Judge would be fine." I do not think that is what a literal interpretation of what those words mean. But ---

Point of order. Did he not also say that he will appear before whosoever is appointed?

Yes, that I said, please. But that does not mean that I agree with the appointment of the Judge, please, Mr Minister. I said, "It's your province. So be it. Go ahead and appoint. You appoint a Judge or you appoint anybody from the public, I will appear and give my evidence before the Commission." But I should have thought that, if there was any doubt about whether I agreed or not, it would have been resolved by my letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister after the weekend, when I expressly told him about my misgivings about a Judge being on the Commission. So even if I had agreed or seemed to have agreed in this House, two days later I was telling him, "Please". If I had seemed to agree or if the Prime Minister thought I had agreed, two days later I was telling him, "I don't think really a High Court Judge should be the man." And as I pointed out the Prime Minister quite candidly in his letters never says, "You agreed to the appointment of a High Court Judge." In none of his letters he says that directly to the point, "You agreed to the appointment." All he says was, "You agreed that there was no question about the independence of the High Court Bench." And what I said then was that for the High Court Bench, there were provisions guaranteeing their appointment and their removal and I wanted inquiry into the Subordinate Judiciary. So you have the Prime Minister in his letters never making this allegation that I had specifically agreed to a High Court Judge. So please do not try and make so much out of that. It is like trying to make bricks without any straw, Mr Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think I have very many more minutes left. So let me conclude by saying that the reply by the Minister fails abysmally to answer the motion because he has not grasped what is in the motion. The motion is that the object, I repeat again, the motion is that the object and purpose of the Commission which was agreed to in this House by the Prime Minister was all swept aside, was lost sight of, in the terms of reference which were announced for the Commission on the 16th April this year. That is the motion before the House. And I am prepared to defend that anywhere. I am prepared to defend it before University students, before lecturers, before anyone else, and ask them whether they agree that the terms of reference depart from the object and purpose of the Commission which was agreed in this House. And may I say, Members of the House, I have no doubt at all what any audience will say. I have no doubt that if this question is put to academic staff or to a gathering of lawyers, or to a gathering of any other people, professionals, they will agree that there has been a significant departure. May I say this, when these new terms of reference were announced and lawyers came to read them, a number of them told me, "Don't take part. They have completely changed. They have switched the whole terms of reference. This is not what you agreed to." But I said, "No, it does not matter." I said that, and there were lawyers who are telling me not to take part. I said, "It does not matter. I will still take part, even if they have switched the terms of reference." But this is what the lawyers told me. I did not have to ring them up and ask them, "Do you think the terms of reference had been changed?" They rang me up. In fact, one of them came and left a note for me, "You should seriously consider whether you should continue with this Commission. You have every right to withdraw." But I did not withdraw. I went there and I said, "Just give me an assurance that you will produce these witnesses for cross -examination and I will then testify and supply the evidence." So I ask you, Members of the House, to examine your conscience, because I shall be calling for a Division on this, to examine your conscience and to vote according to your conscience. Do you agree or not agree that the terms of reference as announced are a complete departure from the terms of reference that were agreed and accepted in this House by the Prime Minister. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, by way of clarification, all I want to say is that every item that had been agreed to in the debate is to be found in the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry. What the Member for Anson wanted is in the terms of the Commission of Inquiry. Allegations about Mr Michael Khoo is here. His suggestion for improvement is here. But what he wants is, as he said, that the whole system of improving the Judiciary ---

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, point of order.

By way of clarification, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is this clarification?

Yes, clarification.

Is this clarification or another go?

Could you sit down, please? I think he is entitled to make a clarification.

My clarification is this. That the terms cover the points that were agreed. What he wants, as he has said, is that the Commission should have looked into the proposal to establish a whole new system of Subordinate Court Judiciary and then look into the allegation. In other words, to take the analogy again, we should first inquire and decide on the establishment of a new Parliament building and then later find whether there were reasons - negligence, and that the building is unsafe - to come as the secondary item of investigation. It is so absurd, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we should have no hesitation in rejecting the motion.

Since the Minister has clarified, may I ask him to reply to my challenge? Will he accept my challenge and arrange a debate before his own University students on the question of the terms and about section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, whether I could have raised them, whatever the terms? Would he like a debate at the University? Will he accept my challenge?

The proposition is so ludicrous that I do not see why we must inflict this on the rest of Singapore. But since he has mentioned that he wants to repeat this outside, let me ask him now, again, in addition to all the requests made, will he repeat outside the Chamber (a) his defamatory allegations made under privilege about Mr S.R. Nathan; (b) his defamatory allegations made here under the cloak of privilege concerning the Howe family, and (c) what he was asked to repeat outside by the Chief Justice who made the request to the Prime Minister that he repeat the allegations. Will he repeat all these allegations outside?

This is old hat.

Will he repeat his allegations outside?

The man refuses to accept the challenge. He refuses to accept the challenge and then he digs up things from the past and says, "Hey, what about that? Why don't you bring it in now?" For goodness sake.

Will you repeat those allegations?

Will you accept my challenge?

Repeat all those allegations. He doesn't repeat them.

He doesn't accept my challenge.

Order. The Question is the motion* standing in the name of the Member for Anson. *The motion reads as follows: That this House regrets that the terms of reference announced for the Commission of Inquiry appointed under Gazette Notification No. 1298 and published on the 18th of April 1986 depart significantly in their purpose and object from the purpose and object of the commission that was proposed and discussed in this House on the 21st of March 1986.

I ask for a Division, Sir.

All right. Ring the bells. The House divided: Noes, 34; Ayes, 2; Abstention, 1. Noes Noes (cont.) Abdullah Tarmugi Ow Chin Hock Ahmad Mattar Rajaratnam, S. Ang Kok Peng Tan Cheng Bock Beng Kian Lam, Tan Tee Yong, Philip Arthur Teh Cheang Wan Chandra Das, S. Teo Chong Tee Chin Harn Tong Vasoo, S. Dhanabalan, S. Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri Goh Chok Tong Wong Kan Seng Goh Choon Kang Yatiman Yusof Ho Tat Kin Yeo Choo Kok Ibrahim Othman Yeo Toon Chia Jayakumar, S. Zulkifli bin Mohammed Koh Lip Lin Lai Tha Chai Ayes Lau Ping Sum Lau Teik Soon Chiam See Tong Lee Hsien Loong Jeyaretnam, J.B. Lee Yiok Seng Lee Yock Suan Abstention Leong Horn Kee Ng Kah Ting Tan Soo Khoon Motion accordingly negatived.

6.00 pm

This motion* is subject to signification of support by at least one Member. Does the motion have the support of any other Member?

It does, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I move my motion, I would like to thank the Leader of the House for extending the moment of interruption beyond 4.30 pm today. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, *That this House views with regret the Housing and Development Board's refusal to remove all restrictions on the sale and resale of HUDC flats.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Sir, the motion states, 'That this House views with regret the Housing and Development Board's refusal to remove all restrictions on the sale and resale of HUDC flats.' The Housing and Development Board has not received any request to remove all the restrictions on the sale and resale of HUDC flats. Since the Housing and Development Board has not received any request, it stands to reason that it is not possible for the Housing and Development Board to refuse such a request. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you may wish to rule whether it is in order for the House to debate an imaginary Housing and Development Board's refusal.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is obvious that the Minister refuses to read in the papers what is relevant. The reversal of policy of buying back the HUDC flats was announced on 5th July and that was a Saturday. If he had read the Sunday papers, he would have known that I, on behalf of my Party, amongst other things, have called on the HDB to remove all restrictions on the sale and resale of HUDC flats. We received no reply from the Minister in his walkabout, and the only thing he has told us was, "Yes. I have replied to one or two points in this article." But he has ignored this point, which is the most relevant point, and he has gone round saying, "No. We have not breached our faith." He said it was not a policy. It was just a practice. Assistance, is it? Is that what you have replied? Why did you not reply to this point? That is the reason why we are here? So he has committed himself to replying only part of the question but left the more important part out.

All right. I allow you to move your motion. You may proceed.

We do not do things just out of the blue, Mr Minister. We communicate in all kinds of ways.

Communication through the gutter press?

That is what you say, not me. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on 5th July, all of a sudden as usual, HDB announces - it never gives prior warning, it drops a bombshell - it does not want to buy back any more HUDC flats which are less than five years old. Naturally all those 216-odd people who wanted to resell back their flats to the HDB were not only very disturbed but were very angry, and some were even completely disgusted. This is evidenced by the response given in the press. You can just look at the press and see how disgusted the HUDC owners were. I will just quote one of them to show the type of reaction to the announcement of the HDB. There was a Bedok Reservoir resident who said he wanted to wash his hands of the HDB completely. He said, I quote: 'I have committed myself to a private property and I am going ahead. I would better advertise and try to sell my flat. I will probably not get the original price but I want nothing more to do with the HDB.' "Nothing more to do with the HDB." Can you see how disgusted he was of the HDB?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Sir, if I read the motion correctly, it has got to do with sale and resale of HUDC flats. It has nothing to do with the buy-back policy of the HDB. Is the Member speaking on the motion or is he introducing some other subject?

Before I make a ruling, how do you define "resale"? Are you talking about buying back?

Well, there is a sale and, of course, there is a resale.

But you are talking about buying back.

Sale is a sale from the HUDC to the first owner, and then he wants to sell it again. There is nothing wrong with that.

There is no restriction.

There is nothing wrong with that.

All right, carry on.

I do not see why this House should be picking on things they do not understand. May I be allowed to continue? We are on the topic of this sale and resale but we have to see why we are coming on to the sale and resale. A motion does not come out of the blue. There must be some relevant factors to it.

Then state it correctly.

I hope you do not interrupt me again. I am perfectly speaking relevantly. The more important issue in this matter that we are discussing is the credibility of the HDB. We have seen all the reactions, especially that particular resident from Bedok Reservoir. As far as he is concerned, and perhaps as far as HUDC flat owners of Phase 3 and Phase 4 are concerned, the credibility of the HDB is either near-zero or zero. Yes, I think it is important. The HDB must maintain a good credibility because they are housing 85% of the population of Singapore and it is of great concern to a vast majority of the people of Singapore. The Minister, a Chinese scholar, I believe, would know Confucius well. Can you remember what Confucius said of a good government? There are three requirements - food, military equipment and trust of the people. Someone asked the sage, "Which one can you remove?" He said, "You can take off military equipment." Then another disciple came in and asked the sage, "Of the two, which one can you dispense with?" He said, "Food. Human beings must die. But without trust of the people, the ruler has no standing at all." I hope that the HDB will regain their credibility, otherwise they will have no standing with the people. I believe I have quoted that correctly. Of course, the HDB's reason was that they have 1,170 (or about that number) vacant flats which they have built. This is the reason given by the HDB and they cannot take back any more. Of the 216 applicants whose flats are less than five years' old, and who want to sell them back to the HDB, the HDB has accepted 40 and they have approved another 26. If I am wrong, please correct me, Mr Minister. I believe out of the 40 that were accepted, 11 were re-sold by HDB to applicants. This is the reason given. The other reason given was that they have got no legal duty to take back the flats. They said that it is only a favour to HUDC owners. It is nowhere stated in any of the documents, whether it be agreement for lease, or lease, or memorandum of lease, that they have a duty to take back the flats. I will come to that later on. When the property market was good, was firm and strong, at least the HUDC, then the HDB, put up its price. In 1983, I believe HDB jacked up the HUDC flat prices by 143%. HUDC flat owners supported the HDB in purchasing those flats despite the high prices. In Pine Grove, a flat costs as much as $340,000 and that is supposed to be a Government-supported type of development. If I am not mistaken, the Minister has been heard to say that HUDC flats are subsidized 30-40% by the Government and yet it is $340,000. If they are subsidized, why are there no people coming to buy your flats? Why do you have these thousand over flats with you? They are supposed to be subsidized. One would imagine that people will be rushing to buy them. So whether or not there is a subsidy, I think the Minister owes an explanation to the members of the public as to the nature of this subsidy. The HDB has given their reason for building HUDC flats, ie, to give professionals long-term housing, give them a stake, so to say, in the nation and this is the overt policy of the HDB. I was reading the papers and curiously enough it is stated by the manager of an HUDC estate "that the formation of the HUDC can be described as a political move to provide the middle-income group with proper housing so that they could have a stake in that country." This is something, an eye-opener to me when I read this. The Minister has never told us this. It was someone else. He said that the only reason, we have been given this reason officially by the Minister, is that they provide reasonably priced housing for the middle-income group of Singapore. But he never mentioned that there was a political reason behind it. I call on the Minister, in view of the fact that he has, I would say, gone back on his word, he has breached his faith in making the announcement on 5th July, at least the most decent thing he can do now is to remove all restrictions on the sale and resale of HUDC flats and I call upon him in this motion to do so. I think at least he will give those present flat owners a fighting chance to sell their flats. Out of the 216, I believe some of them took your policy for granted and they have, in fact, committed themselves to purchasing a private property and this group in particular will suffer hardship as a result of your sudden change of policy. What have you done for all? Give a concession in return. You said, "We will give them more time to sell. If six months is not enough, we will give them one year, 1(r) years, two years." Is this a concession at all? If an HUDC flat owner cannot sell his unit in six months, I do not think he can sell it in two years in the current property market which is so weak. That is not a concession at all. Of course, the other concession is that people who want to purchase HUDC units can use 100% of their CPF Ordinary Account. But, as we know, there is already a Government policy which allows anyone to use 90% of his CPF Ordinary Account to buy private property. So if anyone can buy an HUDC flat with 100% of his CPF Ordinary Account, I am sure he can buy a private flat with 90% of his CPF account. I am sure he would have that much money. If he has the choice, I do not think he would want to buy an HUDC flat. So that is not a concession. Of course, the other point the Minister often mentioned is the removal of the 30% levy. The rationale behind the removal of the 30% levy is this. They say, "Oh, HUDC flats are subsidized. So we have to have that levy." But if it is subsidized, why are you removing the levy now? I would imagine that would not be the reason. The reason for the levy in the past is because the owners could sell their units at a highly appreciated price and therefore, when they sell it, after paying 30% of the gross price to the HDB, it will still appear good. But now, if anyone who owns an HUDC flat wants to sell his flat, can he make a profit on it? No. He is lucky if he can get his cost back. He probably has to suffer a loss. Can you imagine an owner selling it at a loss and the HDB wants to levy 30% on the gross price and say, "Look, because this flat has been subsidized by us."? I think there will be an uproar among HUDC flat owners. I would not think that he would dare to implement that policy and I do not think it is a concession either. So what concession has he given? As far as we can see, nothing. I would call upon him, if he really wants to do something for these people who have got these HUDC flats and who want to sell them back and HDB is unwilling to take them back, to at least give them this concession - remove all restrictions, put the HUDC property at par with private property. In particular, there are many singles who want to buy a property and cannot qualify. Perhaps this is one area where it would be helpful when he removes all restrictions on the sale and resale. It was justified perhaps to place restrictions on the sale and resale of HUDC property in the early days. It was true when the market was very good, prices were galloping upwards. So anyone without any restriction could make a quick buck. He could speculate on HUDC property and, of course, it is not fair for people to make money on HUDC property. But what is the situation now? It has completely changed. All those reasons that were given by the HDB before are no longer valid. There is a glut of flats and condominium units now, but not at that time. So there is hardly any difference between private flats, condominium units and HUDC units. In fact, I have personal knowledge that some condominium units are even cheaper now than your subsidized HUDC flats. So there is really no ground at all to impose your restrictions. So the only logical thing to do is to remove all your restrictions. Let us look at these 1,000-odd vacant units. Is it the fault of the HUDC flat owners? It is not. And they are penalized. HDB has over-estimated the demand and kept on building when the demand is not there. The HDB has built in excess and now they are saddled with this big number of flats and the poor HUDC flat owners have to suffer for it. It is not a case of HUDC flat owners unloading big numbers of flats to the HDB and as a result the HDB has to carry big numbers of flats, and they say, "All right, please stop selling back to us. We are already buying back too many units." If that is the case, there is some justification. But that is not the case. The case is that HDB on its own has built too many flats and therefore it is unable to buy back HUDC flats. In fact, I have just mentioned that they bought back only 40 units, and out of that 40 units HDB has managed to sell 11 units, leaving only 29. That is all they are holding. Why can the HDB not take back more flats from the 216 people who want to resell them back to the HDB? Why can they not do so? Of course, if you look at it from another point of view, these 1,000-odd vacant flats which the HDB is holding are causing a big loss in terms of interest and later on when the property market does improve - I have read in the Property Market Consultative Committee's report which says that even in December 1990 the demand will not be there - there will be an excess of flats even by that date. So the HDB is going to have a big problem trying to unload these 1,000-odd HUDC flats and think of the amount of interest lost. When the time comes to sell these flats, I am sure the prices will have to be jacked up to recover the interest lost. There is no doubt about that. The other point is the question of breach of faith. Of course, the Minister has denied it. There is no breach of faith. But I am afraid those HUDC flat owners who cannot sell their flats back to the HDB think otherwise. It has been clearly reported in the papers. I would contend that there is a breach of faith on the part of the HDB. The HDB has set a precedent when they say, "Yes, we will continue to buy back." And they have done so and people expect it. How else? So it is a question of trust. I think the HDB has really let down the HUDC flat owners. They feel that they have been done in. What is the protection or fall-back that the HDB is relying on? On legal ground. Let us look at whether or not they have a legal ground. In my view they have not. I would say that, in fact, the HDB is legally bound to buy back those flats. How do I come to that conclusion? That the HDB has a policy; it is an announced policy. I hope the Minister is not denying that because in Parliament on 22nd March 1983 he had clearly announced the policy of the HDB. "Mr Teh said during the debate on the fund allocations to his Ministry that the policy for HUDC flats which are now, he says, 'are governed by the same rules applied to HDB flats.'" I do not think he will deny that. And we have established yesterday, I believe during Question time, that HDB has a rule. As far as HDB flats are concerned, they have a rule that they will buy back HDB flats which are less than five years old. If we go by what he had said on 22nd March 1983, and I have to quote the Minister for Home Affairs earlier on in the debate, he said, "Government stands by what it says." I have got it here. I hope the Government will stand by what it says, in the case of HDB. If HUDC policy must comply with the policy of the HDB or that HDB rules are applicable to HUDC, then the HDB must, by this ruling, buy back HUDC flats. Because there is a rule for HDB, it must also follow that this rule must follow for the HUDC. If there is a rule, then we go back to what is written in your agreement for lease which says that (this is clause 12 which I have mentioned earlier): 'In the case where the purchaser is required under any term condition ["under any term condition" means the condition term of the buy-back of HDB flats within five years] herein to transfer, sell, assign, surrender or cause the flat to be vested in the Board, the consideration for such transfer, sale, surrender or assignment shall be the purchase price of the flat together with the value for such improvements made thereto as determined by the Board and accepted for purchase by the Board or the value of the flat and of such improvements as determined by the Board, whichever is lower. The Board's determination of the value of the flat and/or the improvements shall be final and conclusive and shall not be called into question by the purchaser.' So it would appear that if they want to sell it back or resell or assign, then they must sell it to the HDB at the original purchase price or at a price determined by the HDB. I do not think the HDB will want to buy back at a lower price than the original cost price because they themselves have said that they are 30-40% subsidized. I would say that they have a legal duty to buy back the flats. Why do so many of these HUDC flat owners want to so quickly unload their units back to the HDB? It is quite obvious. Because the market value for property has now dropped drastically. And if it is at par or even if they lose a bit of money, they do not mind selling it off. Why? Because they are not tied down with so many rules and regulations of the HUDC. And they do not have a free car park. Yes, they have to pay $25 a month for their car park. Maybe the Minister does not live in an HUDC or HDB flat and so he does not realize that. This car park is a big problem for HUDC owners. Their friends come on Sunday and they have to rush down and say, "I have got to go and renew my car park coupon". All the hassle. Whereas living in a private property, you just come in and park your car and that is all. That is the reason why they want to sell off. As I have said, I have brought up this issue because I think you should not only give a fighting chance in view of the change of policy of the HDB, but more important is the credibility of the HDB which is really at stake. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to have a Division on this motion because I think it is important --- An hon. Member: Your supporter has gone. You are alone.

--- to see how HUDC owners vote on this motion. I think there is another important point which I have to make, my final point, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The Minister has said that there is no legal duty for HDB to buy back the HUDC flats. Assuming, Mr Minister, that if there is a legal duty, there is a binding contract, there is a clause which says that the HDB has to buy back the flat within five years, will the HDB honour its contractual terms? Assuming there is a contractual term which the HDB has gone into, will they break it? The Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan:) Of course, not.

Please. You have stated that there is no contractual clause. So you are not legally bound.

Mr Chiam, can you please address me and not the Minister.

My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

All right. You can continue.

I was saying that assuming there is a clause and there is a binding contract, will the HDB honour its contractual terms? Is there a precedent in which - this is assuming again - the HDB has attempted to break its contractual terms with flat owners? I am much obliged, Sir. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the motion and ask the House to reject the motion. The Member for Potong Pasir talked at length about the buying back of HUDC flats. In fact, this matter has been very extensively discussed for a long time, I think more than a month. The arguments of the HUDC owners as well as the HDB have been widely publicized together with the views of the press, the people who wrote letters to the press and also the debate in the last two or three days during Question Time. So this matter has been very extensively discussed and I do not wish to repeat the arguments again. However, there are a few points on which the Member for Potong Pasir is attempting to mislead the public. I will explain those few points. The first point is that in 1983, when HDB offered HUDC flats for sale at that time, I said that the selling price of those HUDC flats was about 30-35% lower than the market price for similar type of flats sold by the private developers. That is a statement of fact. If the Member for Potong Pasir or anyone wants to check the price, he can look at the selling prices in the Straits Times of properties advertised for sale by the developers or by individual owners. They will come to the conclusion that what I said was true. For that reason, HDB was able to sell 4,105 units of HUDC flats. If the HDB prices were not attractive, it would not be possible for HDB to sell such a large number of HUDC flats, 4,105 units. That is the answer I gave to the Member for Cairnhill yesterday about the total number of flats sold by HUDC. Again, the Member for Potong Pasir is trying to confuse the public by saying that the HDB has over-estimated the demand for HUDC flats and therefore has HDB ended up with 1,170 vacant flats. This is quite untrue. In 1982, when HDB assumed the responsibility of building HUDC flats, there were 5,800 applicants on the waiting list to buy HUDC flats. HDB had to assume that these applicants had applied for these HUDC flats in good faith. They had applied for these flats because they wanted HUDC flats. And it is the duty of the HDB to build these flats for them. Therefore, HDB proceeded to build more than 5,000 flats.

Profit motive.

Not profit motive. HDB's responsibility is to provide housing. Our first responsibility is to provide flats for the citizens under our Home Ownership Scheme. So anybody who applies to HDB to buy a unit of flat, it is the responsibility of HDB to build for him or her a unit of flat. Therefore, HDB proceeded to build more than 5,000 units of flats. In fact, HDB has built 5,275 units of flats. That was the answer I gave to the Member for Cairnhill yesterday for the 5,800 applicants on the waiting list. Unfortunately, from 1982 up to now, 1986, during this period 4,900 HUDC applicants withdrew their applications from the HDB. I have explained again and again in this House that HDB takes at least four years to build flats. It has to clear the land, to do the piling, to get the contractors to build the flats. It takes altogether four years to complete the flats. But it takes only a few hours for a person to apply for an HDB flat. He comes to the HDB counter, signs the necessary forms and he is registered as an applicant. At the same time, he can also withdraw. He can cancel his application easily. He just comes to the HDB counter and says that he has decided not to apply for the HDB flat, and he withdraws. So 4,900 applicants withdrew from the HUDC waiting list and therefore HDB is landed with these 1,170 units of flats. These applicants withdrew when these flats were built half-way. And HDB could not stop the building of the flats because HDB had already entered into the contracts. HDB could not tell the contractors, "Sorry. My applicants have withdrawn and therefore we stop building." It is not possible. HDB had to go ahead and complete the building. That was the reason why we ended up with 1,170 units of flats and this was because the public who had applied for HUDC flats had withdrawn their applications. The Member for Potong Pasir is trying to mislead the House as well as the public by saying that HDB had blindly over-estimated the demand for HUDC flats and therefore had built more flats than necessary. In fact, we built less. There were 5,800 applicants on the waiting list and the HDB built only 5,200 flats. We built less than the number of applications. But unfortunately so many applicants withdrew from the waiting list and it landed the HDB with this large number of vacant flats. Another point which the Member for Potong Pasir was trying to mislead the public is by saying that in his considered legal opinion, the HDB ---

I did not say that.

He did not say "considered legal opinion"? Then he is guessing. Is it his legal opinion or he is guessing? I must make sure.

Those are your very own words.

He is guessing. The Member for Potong Pasir is guessing. He is guessing that HDB ---

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I did not say "guessing" at all. Please do not put words in my mouth.

All right, what did he say?

I said that as far as I can see, there is a legal binding document.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir said as far as he can see, so it is only the eye, not opinion. As far as he can see with his eye and not his opinion, the HDB is legally bound to buy back these flats. Am I right?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when we say "as far as we can see", it does not mean that we are looking. What we are saying is that as far as the words go what you have stated is a matter of policy - there is a legal duty on the part of the HDB to buy back the HUDC flats which are not more than five years old. Perhaps the Minister does not really comprehend the English language.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my legal officer, not me (I am not a legal man) and also the Attorney-General's Chambers have advised HDB that it is under no legal obligation to buy back these flats. So if the Member for Potong Pasir thinks that they are wrong, that is, the legal officer who advised HDB is wrong, the AG's Chambers is wrong, then I suggest the Member for Potong Pasir take this matter to court to see who is right, whether HDB is legally obliged to buy back the HUDC flats. I am quite sure if the Member for Potong Pasir is able to prove that legally he is right, then I think there would be a considerable amount of business for him.

May I have a word of clarification, please. Does not the Minister consider his own policy binding on him? Does he not think that?

Yes, of course. I do not think that I have ever said that HDB wants to buy back the HUDC flats.

We go by your policy.

I did not say that. I think last Sunday I have explained to the reporters why HDB buys back the HUDC flats. If the Member for Potong Pasir has not read the newspaper or is not very clear, perhaps I would have to waste some of the time of this House by repeating. HDB is under no legal obligation to buy back the HUDC flats. Last year for various reasons some of the HUDC applicants approached HDB for assistance in selling their HUDC flats. They cannot sell these flats because they know that under the HUDC rule anybody who buys an HUDC flat cannot sell it to anyone within the first five years. So they approached HDB for assistance. At that time HDB officers considered that since there were more than 1,500 applicants on the waiting list for the HUDC flats, therefore they could help these people by buying back a few units of HUDC flats and offered them for sale to the applicants on the waiting list. Therefore this was a special assistance offered by HDB to the HUDC owners as well as to the applicants on the waiting list who wished to buy the old HUDC flats which were built in a good locality. Unfortunately this assistance has been misinterpreted by some HUDC flat owners as a buy-back-policy. This is a misinterpretation by the owner and the Member for Potong Pasir is trying to build on this misunderstanding and turn it into a policy of the HDB. I wish to repeat here, that the HDB has no such policy of buying back HUDC flats. Just imagine, what purpose can be served for HDB to buy back a large number of HUDC flats and keeping them vacant? Is it not a waste of money? Is it not going against the Government policy of homes for the people? HDB has taken great trouble to build the HUDC flats. And after building these HUDC flats, HDB then sells to those applicants on the waiting list who want to buy these flats. After that, HDB buys back these flats and keep them vacant. Do you think any responsible government organization can adopt such a policy? Certainly not. HDB has bought back these flats because at that time there were a large number of applicants on the waiting list who wanted these flats. At present we all know that the waiting list of HUDC flats has gone down to only 180. And no one on this waiting list wants to buy old HUDC flats. Therefore, HDB cannot continue to assist them. This is very unfortunate. HDB's assistance is not only not appreciated but has been misunderstood. In fact, there is a Hokkien saying: Ho sim hor dui chim. That is precisely what happened to the HDB. HDB is trying to help the HUDC applicants and the end result is that they are blamed and the Opposition given an opportunity to try and tarnish the image of HDB. Sir, this motion of the Member for Potong Pasir says that he regrets the HDB's refusal to remove all restrictions on the sale and resale of HUDC flats. I would like to say that HUDC flats are the best public housing units built by the Board. That means they are the largest public housing and are provided with the best finish. However, this is part of public housing under the Home Ownership Scheme. Since it is public housing, they must be governed by the rules of public housing. In fact, the rules governing HUDC flats are considered the minimum rules required or minimum restriction, if the Member for Potong Pasir wants to term these rules as a restriction. It is the minimum restriction or the minimum rules required for this Home Ownership Scheme. The first rule is that the buyer of an HUDC flat must be a Singapore citizen. This is very fair because HDB is the public housing authority and it is building flats for the people. So the buyer must be a citizen. The flats can also be sold to approved permanent residents, ie, those who in the Government's opinion are able to make a good economic contribution to Singapore. They are allowed to buy, except that when permanent residents want to buy they have to pay 10% higher in price, and they also have a longer waiting period than the citizens. The second requirement is that the applicant must have a family nucleus because the flats are sold to the people with a family. For those singles who want to buy an HUDC flat, they must be at least 40 years old. But this restriction is different for HDB and for HUDC. Singles are not allowed to buy HDB flats but they are allowed to buy HUDC flats. This is the difference that I would like to point out to the Member for Potong Pasir. So I am saying that although HUDC flats are governed by the rules of HDB, they are not identical. If they are identical, then singles who cannot buy HDB flats should also not be allowed to buy HUDC flats. But singles are now allowed to buy HUDC flats. This proves that a lot of the rules of the HDB and HUDC are similar but they are not identical. In other words, not all the rules are the same. Another difference is income ceiling. For HDB flats the family income ceiling is $4,000 per month, but for HUDC flats the income limit is $6,000. But the Member for Potong Pasir is trying to build up a case that they are the same. From these few points that I have mentioned, you can see that the rules for HDB and HUDC are not the same. They are different. Non-ownership of a private property. This means that if a person owns a flat or a bungalow or a residential house, then he is not qualified to buy a public housing flat. This is because he already has a place to live. Then the rules on the occupation of the flat. Anybody who buys an HUDC flat must use it for his own residence. This is fair enough. It means that Government is building flats for the people to live, not building flats for the people to rent it out. If anybody wants to invest in residential property, then he should buy a condominium flat or a bungalow or be like the Member for Potong Pasir who, I understand, owns several flats for rent. Anybody who buys an HUDC flat must have stayed in it for at least five years before he is allowed to sell his flat to an owner of his choice. This condition is also the same for the HDB flats. The owner must live there for five years before he can sell his flat. Here, because of the requests of the PAP Members for a relaxation of the rules, HDB has relaxed it to allow owners of HUDC flats who have been living in them for less than five years to sell their flats. This is a concession which is not given to HDB flat owners. Again a different rule governing the HUDC and HDB. HUDC owners now can sell their flats to buyers of their own choice, provided the buyers are qualified. But this privilege is not given to HDB owners. Again, this shows that the rules for HDB flats and for HUDC flats are different. On the levy, Government has done away with the levy. Those owners who sell their HUDC flats within the first five years pay no levy to the Government. From these, Members can see that the restrictions placed on HUDC flats are, in fact, the minimum restriction that is required for public housing. That is a very reasonable restriction. Therefore, I request this House to reject the motion proposed by the Member for Potong Pasir.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think there are two points which the Minister has not answered fully. First, the conditions laid down for the sale of HUDC flats in the earlier years. The reasons for all these conditions, I have already mentioned, are not valid today. Property prices have dropped to almost at par or even sometimes lower than HUDC flats, and there is also a glut of condominium units as well as flats. Therefore, there is no possibility of any HUDC owner going to buy an HUDC flat with a view to making a profit or speculating on it. The Minister says that it is a Government policy to provide for public housing. When he says that, there is an assumption that prices of public housing must be cheaper than private housing, otherwise why would anyone be given a choice? It is obvious. Public housing in the earlier days, as the Minister has said, was 30-35% lower than private housing. That is very good. I applaud that. But now that the prices are almost equal and, in fact, even less, what is the rationale for this so-called public housing? There is no benefit at all in buying public housing. Unless there is a valid reason, they should not still hang on to all these conditions. The other point I would just like to bring up is in regard to the binding contract which I have mentioned and which the Minister has not answered. What I was saying is that if there is a binding contract on the HDB, does not the HDB ever break its own contractual terms?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Potong Pasir has missed a very important point. I have repeatedly said on many occasions that the policy of public housing, that is the HDB policy, is to enable Singapore citizens to become home owners. Therefore the Government is building public housing up to HUDC level, and sell to the people at an affordable price. There is no point for Government to build the flats to sell to the people when people cannot afford to buy. Therefore, this profit motive is not the primary consideration. The primary consideration of HDB is to make sure that our citizens are able to own their flats. And if it so happens that five years later they sell their flats and make a lot of money, good luck to them. But if five years later, they sell their flat and make less money, well, we cannot help it. It is not the primary objective of the HDB to enable HDB flat owners to make a profit. HDB's primary objective is to build comfortable homes, ie, to build good housing, for the citizens of Singapore. I am still confident that HDB will eventually be able to sell these 1,170 units of the vacant HUDC flats, because most of the HUDC flats are priced at a reasonable price although ---

I have to make a clarification. I hope the Minister is not misleading the public by saying "I have a hope that HUDC flats can be easily sold." The report of the Property Market Consultative Committee does not show that. There is going to be a glut, even by December 1990. There are two scenarios. One scenario is that projects already commenced, when completed, will make for nearly 8,000 residential homes in excess. The other scenario is that, if all approved projects are completed, will leave us with more than 14,000 units in excess. What then is the basis of your saying that you have confidence that these units are going to be sold? Just tell me that.

The pricing of our HUDC flats is a reasonable pricing. As I have answered the Member for Cairnhill yesterday, 70% of HUDC flats are priced at below $220,000 per unit. In spite of what the Member for Potong Pasir has said, I am confident ---

You are confident?

Yes, I am confident that HDB will sell the HUDC flats eventually. But I am not suggesting that it will be sold very quickly. If it is going to be sold very quickly, then perhaps this problem of buying back will not arise because HDB can continue to assist these HUDC flat owners by buying them back if the HUDC flats could be sold so quickly. In fact, this is the same side of the coin.

You have not answered my other queries, please, about the binding contract. Assuming there is a binding contract, will the HDB not break it, please?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is no point for me to answer the Member for Potong Pasir on an imaginary case. I mentioned earlier that if HDB is legally obliged to buy back the flat, the case is very clear, HDB has to buy back the flat. How can HDB refuse to buy back the flat if it is legally obliged to buy back the flat? It is quite ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous. I have two letters here from the HDB which show that they break their own contract. HDB has gone into a binding contract with a purchaser of one of its flats at $51,900 and it wants to go back on its words by insisting that the buyer now pays more. There is already a binding contract. The HDB insists that he now pays $61,100. If you do not believe me, you can check it out. I have got two cases but there are many other cases. They have come to me at my Meet-the-People sessions. There is another case of a binding contract for $42,600 and the HDB wants to go back on its contractual terms and force the poor chap to pay $46,400. This is clear-cut proof that HDB has gone back on its contractual terms, and please do not tell us that it is a hypothetical case. I am not speaking about hypothetical case. I am speaking of concrete cases here. HDB and HUDC flats are all governed by HDB rules.

I am a bit confused. I thought that we are talking about HUDC flats. Suddenly I am told that it is HDB flats. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think this is quite a clear case. I do not think we should waste too much of Parliament's time. If there is any individual case that HDB is legally in the wrong, then HDB has to buy back. HDB has no intention of breaking its legal obligation. If there is a legal obligation on the HDB to buy back, then HDB will buy back, as I mentioned, including the HUDC flats. I mentioned yesterday that HDB has undertaken to buy back 26 HUDC flats. HDB will buy them back. Anything that HDB is legally obliged and has undertaken in writing, HDB will carry out that undertaking. There is no question of Government breaking its own law or that the HDB does not follow the laws of Singapore. There is no such question. But if the Member, as an MP for Potong Pasir, is acting for his constituents, he can refer this case to HDB. HDB's legal officer will look into it and if, legally, HDB has to buy back or has to pay whatever amount is due, HDB will pay. But if the Member for Potong Pasir is acting as a solicitor for these people ---

I have got no pecuniary interest at all.

No? I am saying that if he is acting as a lawyer for these people, then please take HDB to court.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I said, the issue here is the credibility of the HDB. The Minister has not satisfactorily answered my query. I have put the question to him. He says, "It is hypothetical. We will surely be bound by our contractual terms." But I have evidence here that, even if you have the contractual terms, you are breaking them. You can break one set of contractual terms, why cannot you break, in the face of your 1,170 excess units? An hon. Member: HUDC.

They are governed by the HDB. They are the same.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think we can continue to argue this. As I have explained very clearly, if HDB is legally in the wrong, the Member for Potong Pasir can send the case to HDB and take it up with HDB's legal officer. And if HDB is legally obliged to buy back the flat at whatever price that has been agreed, the HDB will pay that sum of money. There is no question on that. If the Member for Potong Pasir considers that HDB is breaking the law and refuses to pay, then I would suggest that he take HDB to court.

Is your word more important than the legal officer?

Order. The Question is, 'That this House views with regret the Housing and Development Board's refusal to remove all restrictions on the sale and resale of HUDC flats.' As many as are of that opinion, say "Aye".

Aye.

To the contrary, say "No". Other hon. Members: No.

Division, please.

Do you really want a Division?

I want to know how some Members will vote.

I distinctly heard only one "Aye" from you. If you want, we can just record it.

All right. Since the time constraint is there, it is all right.

The Noes have it. Motion accordingly negatived.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Teh Cheang Wan]. Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes past Seven o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. statement - FURTHER STATEMENT BY PERCY SENEVIRATNE (Cols. 505 - 506)