We will come to that. I was very hurt and deeply disappointed, because after what I had done to help him, he had tried to trap me by secretly taping a private conversation with me, an academic colleague, who is Head of the Department, who had given him honest, friendly advice in response to his specific request. He asked me about politics. He said that he wanted to go into politics. I said, "There are difficulties. There are challenges. There are issues." Obviously, when you are in politics, you are going to face problems and difficulties. It is quite natural. I was frank. I told him what it was. I felt what he had done was a serious breach of personal trust. Sir, from that moment onwards, I had serious doubts as to his character and integrity. When a man can do this and not be open about it, when he is treated so nicely, when he is treated openly, when he is nurtured, we give him a chance, and he really downs you, you think any sensible person would not take heart to these things? After that event, I had my doubts on the character of Dr Chee. So I decided that this man's actions needed close monitoring and scrutiny. Incidentally, Sir, in The Straits Times of 6th April 1993, Mr Chiam was reported to have called on me to return the tape to Dr Chee. He said, "By taking it, it is theft, you know." He does not know what he is talking about. He said, "It is his property and Dr Chee is entitled to it." I wish to inform Mr Chiam and hon. Members that both the tape-recorder and the cassette are the property of the Department of Social Work and Psychology. They were purchased with University funds and allocated to Dr Chee for departmental use. Therefore, I did nothing wrong in retaining the tape after Dr Chee had surreptitiously tape recorded not one but two conversations with me and had also lied when he denied he was recording our conversation. I believe Mr Chiam owes me an apology. I saw the tape, I could recognise it. My Department has got vouchers to support the kind of tapes we buy and the tapes he used for recording. So we stand by what we have done and what I have said. Sir, this taping incident was the turning point in my judgment of this young colleague. However, despite this incident, I kept my professional roles clear. If I had played politics, I would have played politics a long time ago. I know that within the academic world and within the academic context, my teaching comes first, my students come first, and I deal with them at my best. I did not play politics with Dr Chee. I did not expose him in the Marine Parade by-election rallies because I had this good stuff with me, this tape, to show what kind of a person he is. I did not even report to Associate Professor Ernest Chew, the Dean, and the University and even my party leaders, even PM Goh and all those people who were involved in the by-elections. I did not even breathe a word. It will be very useful material for them if I had passed it on to them. They could have used it. They could have asked me to go and talk at the Marine Parade by-election. I went there. I participated in the Marine Parade by-election. I spoke there at the rallies in Aljunied. I said let the people judge Dr Chee. I did not even say anything about him. I did not run him down. I had not done this. I have important evidence and information about his character, what kind of person he is, which should be useful for the party, but I refrained from giving them to the Party. Does it not show that I have kept my roles very clear? The Party should have taken action against me for not divulging them. But it was a clear professional role that I played. It was only much later after I discovered that he had used funds and was dishonest in the investigations that I reported the taping incident to Professor Ernest Chew, the Dean, and kept the Vice-Chancellor informed. I did not tell them. I was an academic Head. My duty in such an incident was to report, but I said, "Look, let us monitor this young man and see what is he like, what kind of person is he." When I subsequently reviewed my staff's work and their usage of research funds sometime in early January 1993, I paid special attention to Dr Chee's two research projects. They were in two different files. So you never know a picture unless you collate them and put them together. This was because of my doubts about his integrity in the light of his repeated denials of the taping incident. There must be something in this man that is not right. So I began to search, looking for things. Anybody would have done it. Because once you break the trust, and there is some character problem. Your doubts carry further. You look to assess whether this man does in a way stand tall. I discovered by collating information from the funds used from two research projects that he had sent parcels by courier service to Pennsylvania State University. I also discovered that he had made transport claims by taxi under his research vote amounting to $798. I shall say more about this later. Sir, let me first deal with the parcels he sent by courier service. I found that he had on 8th September 1992 sent a parcel in his name using our University research fund amounting to $74.
50. At first, it did not register in my mind that this was unusual as I thought that it was his research materials. Normally, all staff in the Department send all sorts of materials to all over the world. It is not easy to keep track of these things. However, I became suspicious when I discovered that he had subsequently mailed two parcels at the same time on the same day, 9th November 1992. That is where I became more suspicious. Let me tell you why. In reviewing the invoices, my curiosity was further aroused, as one parcel, which was billed and paid under his wife's name, was sent to the Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University. Why did she send it? Why did he? He could not charge the cost of $53.50 to his research account because the parcel was sent in his wife's name, as the consignment note shows. But he did not tell the public that he sent his wife's parcel. He said he sent one parcel. Sir, may I ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute all the Annexes to Members and also to the press? [Copies of documents distributed to hon. Members]. They document all the things. We have nothing to hide. If you look at Annexes A-1 to A-6 you will find the copies of consignment notes and invoices filed with the Department of Social Work and Psychology. These are all filed with my Department. They are carbon copies. Annexes A-7 to A-10 are copies of the original filed at the Bursar's Office. So I produce them because Mr Chiam says that I have doctored them here and doctored them there, that the receipts are not correct and there are some flaws in them. But they are all public documents which can be produced in Court. The Court can verify them. We have nothing to hide. They are all there. Sir, the other parcel costing $151.50 was sent in his name and charged under his research vote. It was sent to the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Pennsylvania State University. Who knows what he sends. Although he claims that I know his wife is there, but what materials did he send? Everybody's wife is studying here and there and how do I keep track. But he had no known research connections in the Pennsylvania State University. He mentions Dr Hynd's letter. It is from Georgia. From Pennsylvania, it has now gone to Georgia. We could establish all that. This is a letter dated 12th April. It is much later than what we have been querying for the past few months. I know he has written to George Hynd because George Hynd was his teacher in Georgia. They have worked together in research. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia. So he must have connections there. The parcel was sent in Skypak-sealed envelope and he forwarded it by courier service. He did not come and see me to say, "Dr Vasoo, let me tell you what is in this parcel." No permission was sought from me. I was not informed of the actual contents. He was accountable for what he had sent. All staff mail all sorts of things out of the funds that have been allocated to them. As Head of the Department, we do not police, we do not follow, we do not go and dig out. That is an improper thing to do. When I had earlier authorised payments, I assumed these to be his research work because he had charged to his research vote. He is a professional, he should know best what he had sent. My office staff and I never open parcels mailed by staff. It would be highly improper to do this. You must trust your staff, they are academics who should have high personal integrity. Sir, all the Annexes "A" show all the invoices and bills that are available. Mr Chiam says that I have covered up one part of it. I covered up one part of it to specifically indicate to Dr Chee what he had sent to make sure that he knows what it is. Knowing him, his arguments could turn out to be quite different. So you have got to show specific things. But there is nothing to hide. They are all there. They can be challenged. I am not afraid of showing all these documents. I can be challenged in the court to verify all these documents. They are authentic bills which have been filed. Sir, the question is: why did he send two parcels on the same day to two different Departments at Pennsylvania State University? One to the Department of Psychology (which was sent in his wife's name) and another sent to the Department of Human Development and Family Studies (sent in his name). I suspected that the parcel sent to the Psychology Department must have been for his wife's external examiner. It had to be in his wife's name, otherwise, the external examiner would not know whose thesis it was. Under the American system, they appoint external examiners outside the Department in which you enrol as a PhD student. So at least I have got the picture. Otherwise, it will be difficult to discern. I then personally reported the matter to the Dean, Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew and kept the Vice-Chancellor informed. I gave them the invoices and consignment notes. They followed the case very closely. Coincidentally, on 15th January 1993 - this is where the bubble burst - Dr Chee's wife, Madam Huang Chih-Mei came to see me for a job in the Department. To clear my doubts and my suspicion, I asked her for details of the date of her PhD oral examination, names of her internal examiners, and her external examiner outside the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Pennsylvania State University in which she was enroled as a PhD student. She informed me that she defended her PhD oral examination at the end of November 1992 and gave me the names of her respective examiners. This information confirmed my suspicions. When you get these things together you get the real picture. The real picture emerged. As she had to appear for oral defence of her PhD examination before the end of November 1992, the parcels had to be sent quickly by courier service on 9th November 1992. She would be going to defend her PhD. Parcels had to be amnt early. So within two weeks the examiners would have read it and conduct the oral examination. Three of her examiners were from the Human Development and Family Studies Department. They knew her. The fourth was an external examiner from the Psychology Department at Pennsylvania State University who did not know her and would not have recognised the parcel if the sender had been Dr Chee and not herself. Sir, I subsequently made arrangements with the Dean, Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew to meet me and Dr Chee on 4th March 1993 to discuss Dr Chee's work and his use of research funds. I wanted the Dean to be present so that we can have an impartial person, who is also my superior, to meet with Dr Chee together with me. After the incident, when you do not trust the person anymore, and when you want to deal with such delicate matters, it is not easy. Otherwise, it would be between him and me. And if I do bring in my colleagues, senior colleagues, from the Department, he will say that I will be conniving with them to deal with the matter. So I thought the best thing was to have Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew to sit in, being an impartial witness, to deal with the situation. I no longer trusted him and I wanted a witness in Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew to deal with this situation. Sir, at the meeting held on 4th March 1993 with Dr Chee, Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew and myself -- I read from the notes of the meeting, if you can refer to Annex B-1 and B-2 -- I quote: "He admitted that he had on both occasions sent his wife's dissertation. It was drawn to his attention that it was a misuse of the University's fund. He did not dispute that but explained that he thought Mrs Janice Chen was supposed to alert him and give him the bills to make payment. [Mrs Janice Chen is a staff in our office in charge of research accounts. She has worked in our Department for the last 15 years. She is a very careful person.] However when confronted that he could send his wife's dissertation by courier service on his own expenses as he had done so for one parcel which was charged to his wife's account, he could not give a satisfactory explanation. He was informed it was wrong to use the University research fund to send his wife's materials, he added that he had intended to make payment. His answer was not satisfactory." The notes of the meeting are there and Assoc. Prof. Chew, the Dean who arbitrates and deals in this matter, can vouch for it. Sir, not once during the meeting on 4th March did he claim that he was justified in using research funds in his research accounts for mailing his wife's dissertation. On the contrary, he indicated that he had already intended to pay. What does this mean? He was admitting that he personally had to pay for this and that it was wrong to charge it to the research vote. Otherwise, why was he expecting to be billed? However, when I later checked with Mrs Janice Chen, she stated in writing that Dr Chee had instructed her that the two courier payments in question (sent on 8th September and 9th November 1992) be charged to his research accounts. I refer you to Annex C for Mrs Janice Chen's statement. It is very clear, and she is very clear-minded, she is very specific, she is very meticulous. Normally, staff direct our research account staff to charge where it should be charged. It is not their business to go and decide to charge where they think best. Where research is concerned, the responsibility is on the researcher. At the end of the meeting on 4th March 1993, Dr Chee was asked to give his explanation in writing. Because of my past experience in dealing with him and knowing him, I thought it was necessary to get him to put it in writing, so that we could then subsequently discuss and take up the matter further. Sir, he had accused in the papers that that meeting was a political interrogation that we had. We are not running a Gestapo service. The Dean, a decent man that I know, honest Christian, and myself, together grilling him? Grilling him on a political arena? We were just there to talk to him about his work. We discussed about his academic orientation, his academic interest, because he had made statements in The Ridge -- you can read them, they are there -- and he felt that political involvement was more important than academic involvement. That was what he said, to that effect. Surely, in an academic institution, he has got to establish what the priorities are. The Dean then discussed about this and, subsequently, also talked about issues related to the status of the University and why Dr Chee felt necessary to run the University down. During the discussions, the issue came up that Dr Chee thought that he was not as good, but he was taken in by the University, and he (Dr Chee) could not understand why. The Dean then sought for clarification that this view was not good image for the University. The Dean was just expressing an opinion. And he told him, "Why didn't you clarify in the papers, if it was wrongly quoted?" And all the time Dr Chee said that he was misquoted by the papers. So the Dean and myself said, "If it is wrongly quoted, I think it is right that you write in to clarify the situation." So this is what we asked. We talked about other related work. And then we went on to discuss about the use of his research funds. That was also a very important question that we need to establish an answer to our query. After the meeting, I immediately rang up Mrs Janice Chen to say, "Watch out, he is coming. Be careful." Because I knew that he would be running there. Sure enough, he turned up in Mrs Chen's office after the call. He said to her that the invoices should be sent to him and not charged to the research vote. But she told him that they had already been charged to his research account, as instructed by him. Later, on the same day, I think in the late afternoon, probably at 4.30 pm, he went to see Janice Chen again. I see it is in the note. You can read Janice Chen's second note of 8th April 1993. I asked her to recollect this because I wanted to build up a case to show the kind of character that we are dealing with. I do not want to do this but I thought it was necessary. So this time he came at 4.30 pm to see Mrs Janice Chen to say that it was all right to have charged the invoices to the research account. He had shifted his position and wanted to find other new arguments. Sir, Dr Chee gave a written explanation in a letter which was delivered to my office on 9th March 1993. But it was dated 4th March 1993. I could not understand the difference of five days. But he backdated it, no doubt. Mr J J Isaac, the NUS Director of Personnel, received a carbon copy on 10th March. In his letter, Dr Chee shifted his position from the meeting of 4th March when he said that he had intended to pay the bills. Instead, he wrote that the two documents he had sent (he did not want to say it was a research PhD dissertation for examination) belonged to his wife's research which carried data on Singaporean children that was relevant to his research. He did not state that the documents were for purposes of his wife's PhD dissertation for examination. He argued that they were completed dissertation. Any completed dissertation can be done five years ago or maybe a few years ago. They were not completed dissertation. They were dissertation sent for examination. That is the main thing. He asserted that, to the best of his judgement, he felt that he was justified in using the funds in his research accounts for mailing the completed dissertation to the University involved so that the results could be quickly validated, and incorporated into his research. You can see, in Annex E, Mr Isaac received a carbon copy of Dr Chee's letter dated 4th March, with receiver's stamp of 10th March; Dr Vasoo's copy (Annex E1), with my note indicating that it was received on 9th March. They are there before you. Since his explanation in his letter dated 4th March was very different from what he had said, two days later, on 11th March 1993, we had another meeting. Dr Chee Soon Juan, Mr J J Isaac, Director of Personnel, the Dean, Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew, and myself were present. We went higher. There was a basis for him to present his case. Sir, the Dean, Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew, the Director of Personnel, Mr J J Isaac and Mrs Janice Chen are present in the officials' gallery to hear what I say, and they will be willing to vouch the facts. Sir, in this meeting on 11 March 1993, Dr Chee for the first time, I repeat, for the first time, confirmed that he had sent his wife's dissertation for PhD examination. He had suppressed the information earlier. He also confirmed the names of the examiners of his wife's PhD dissertation. In this meeting, he abandoned his first position that he had intended to pay and shifted to his written back-dated letter of 4th March that he was justified to send his wife's dissertation using University research fund as her dissertation contained materials relevant to his research. That is his argument now, a new line has developed. This was an untenable excuse. The simple point was that he had sent his wife's dissertation for examination using University funds, and that is the basic thing. We should not be detracted or sidetracked by this. His wife is not a full-time staff member, or our enroled PhD student. She worked part time, and did some research. She was associated six months, for a period of time, and that does not mean that she has got the right to use our University's fund to send the thesis for PhD examination. She is not a staff of the University. Neither is she an enroled PhD student in NUS. Sir, please see Annex F, notes of meeting held on 11th March 1993. It will give you an idea of what had transpired at this meeting. Sir, to my mind, whether his wife's research was related or not to his research was irrelevant. The basic thing is that he had sent his wife's PhD thesis for examination which is already wrong in the first place. Nevertheless, on 13th March 1993, before the University served notice of termination on Dr Chee, I invited Dr John M. Elliott, Senior Lecturer of our Department, who is a respected local psychologist, to comment on the relevance of Dr Chee's University funded research project to his wife's research area. Dr John Elliott is a child developmentalist. He has also worked and researched in the neuropsychology area and he has, in fact, spent more than 15 years working and researching in this direction. Dr John Elliot replied on 15th March (Annex G) and stated without qualification, and I quote, 'I cannot see that it has any direct relevance.' And after explaining the different areas of work, he concluded, and I quote, 'Mrs Chee's research has no particular basis in neuropsychology. It is in a fundamentally different branch of psychology. Moreover, Ms Huang is dealing with children [they are toddlers two to three years old] younger than the range covered by Dr Chee's research, and she does not examine ethnic differences. Her work has no connection to Dr Chee's projects that I can see.' And Dr John Elliot is in the Public Gallery, Sir. Sir, similarly, I also requested Assoc. Prof. Ramadhar Singh to give his opinion. He is well known for his research work in social psychology. He has recently been awarded the Fellow of the American Psychological Association, which is a very prestigious award. He also concluded that he could not see a direct relation between the research reported in his wife's abstract and the research projects by Dr Chee. Sir, in other words, two senior and experienced psychologists of our Department were of the view that Dr Chee's research and his wife's research were not related. And this debunks the argument that his research and his wife's research are all related and, therefore, he was justified to use the money. So that has been debunked. They are local people, they have done local research, they are very senior people, and they have given their opinions. Sir, the story does not end here. I have also brought to the University's attention that Dr Chee had, in January 1992, made transport claims for taxi trips, amounting to $798. In January, this year, I noticed that besides the three parcels sent by courier service to Pennsylvania State University, his taxi trips included 26 trips between NUS and First Toa Payoh Primary School at $12 per trip; and 24 trips between NUS and Braddell Primary School also at $12 per trip. The rounded sums of $12 for each of the 50 trips made me suspicious. Earlier on, I thought it was a just claim. As you know, many Government servants do make claims and they do submit all sorts of claims, but one has got to read between the claims. Later, when all these issues came up, when you became suspicious, when you were unsure, you went back and have a look at them. This was what I did. Sir, I wonder whether Members know how much is the taxi fare for a trip from NUS to either First Toa Payoh Primary School or Braddell Primary School. I know some of you do not travel by taxi, but some of you do. Let me tell you what it is. As I had doubts, on 17th February 1993, to check on this, I travelled in a taxi of the Singapore Commuter Company, belonging to a taxi driver friend of mine, one Mr Hor Kin Mun, who is also a Radin Mas grassroots leader. He is a reliable person. I get him because you can get a print-out of the fare. I went from NUS to Toa Payoh in the early morning peak hours. I left NUS at 8.45 am. I made arrangements with him to pick me up. I took a taxi with him to Toa Payoh itself and then to Braddell Primary School which is just opposite. Toa Payoh Primary School is in Lorong 1 and Braddell Primary School is in Lorong 8. Mr Ong Teng Cheong can vouch for it. I can verify that it costs no more than $9. I also took a taxi trip on the same day from Toa Payoh to Nee Soon. I took the taxi from Singapore Commuter Company because it could still run with the pricing on. I did not go to Nee Soon Central but I went to Nee Soon itself to look for Nee Soon Community Centre. There are too many community centres in Nee Soon South and Nee Soon North and as such I could not get the bearing right. I really went there to check it out. But, unfortunately, because I could not establish which community centre it was, I decided not to give you the pricing of the fare. Sir, indeed, from my own experience, at non-peak hours, the fare will be less than $8.
50. I used to live in Toa Payoh Central some 15 years ago. I know what the fare is as I still take occasional taxi trips from NUS to Toa Payoh for occasional meetings at the Ministry of Community Development. When my car was sent for servicing, I would normally take a taxi. It would go via Toa Payoh Lorong 1 through Philips Singapore Pte Ltd and then to Singapore Labour Foundation (SLF). Toa Payoh Primary School is not too far away. That was how I began to assess what the fare was like. I, therefore, reported these excessive transport claims to the University and I left it to the University to take whatever action they consider necessary. I do not know why the University has not raised the abuse of transport claims with Dr Chee. Sir, I have presented the various facts, and I have documented the events that led to this unfortunate circumstance. Sir, I have recounted these facts in some detail so that hon. Members and the public will be left in no doubt as to the misconduct of Dr Chee. As Head of the Department, I had the duty to bring to the University's attention such misconduct of Dr Chee. If I had not done so, I would be covering up an activity which cannot be condoned. I would, in fact, be abetting him. If I had abetted him, action should be taken against me too. The basic question is Dr Chee's improper use of the University research fund. I have nothing personal against Dr Chee. I have treated him well. I have nurtured him and have brought him into the University. But did he behave like a gentleman from the way that I have described and discussed the case? It is up to Members to assess for themselves. Members of my Department, both staff and students, who know me well, will tell you that I am not a vindictive type of person, or even a combative person. In fact, I had refrained from making any press statement until Dr Chee and the SDP sought to turn this into a political issue and attacked my motives. It is the SDP who has made this simple academic matter into a political issue and, today, they are side-tracking the whole thing into an issue to arouse public sympathy for which it should not be the case. I must say that it is Dr Chee who has brought this problem upon himself. I have done what is right and necessary to maintain the academic integrity of an institution because we do deal with thousands of students, and I think this is crucial. To nurture and to provide the appropriate values to students, we must have academic staff who can stand tall, who have the integrity and the capacity to transfer, transmit and inculcate the right values to these young minds. Sir, no Head of Department can condone such misconduct by a staff member, like Dr Chee. [Applause].